Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/30/2003 - STAFF REPORTS (6) DATE: July 30, 2003 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning and Zoning TTM 30046 CASE NO. 5.0881 - PD-269 -AN APPLICATION BY PALM CANYON, LLC FOR AN 89-LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ON 50.49 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF BOGERT TRAIL, EAST OF GOLDENROD LANE, AND WEST OF THE PALM CANYON WASH, ZONE W-R-1-B AND SP-1, SECTION 35. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council order filing of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Tentative Tract Map 30046 and Case No. 5.0881 -Planned Development District 269, allowing for an 89 lot single family residential subdivision for the 50.49 acre parcel located north of Bogert Trail, east of Goldenrod Lane,and west of the Palm Canyon Wash, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution.The applicant is Palm Canyon, LLC. The principals are Lee Brandenburg and Eric Brandenburg. The land is owned by Palm Canyon, LLC. SUMMARY The Planning Commission at its October 9, 2002 meeting, voted 4-0 (2 abstain, 1 absent) to approve the project subject to the conditions in the staff report. At that time, the Sierra Club filed objections to the project and the project was held in order to prepare responses to comments on the environmental assessment. It is staff's understanding that an agreement has been reached between Palm Canyon, LLC and the Sierra Club with regards to environmental issues on this project. Condition of approval #17 has been added subsequent to the analysis performed for the General Plan Amendments and Specific Plan Amendments that were approved by City Council for the Canyon South Specific Plan on July 16, 2003. The Specific Plan Amendment approved by City Council on December 18, 2002 removed golf as a land use on the subject property. Therefore, the project is consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan. Subsequently, Palm Canyon, LLC and Sierra Club have negotiated and agreement to provide funding for purchasing Casey's June Beetle Habitat. This agreement provides for the developer submitting funds to the City for future acquisition. See Condition of Approval#18.i.and additional information in this report. BACKGROUND Palm Canyon, LLC has submitted an application for Tentative Tract Map 30046 and Case No. 5.0881 - PD-269, requesting the entitlement of subdividing an existing 50.49 acre parcel into eighty-nine(89)single family residential lots. The lots average 16,483 square feet with the smallest lot being 14,000 square feet and the largest lot being 28,025 square feet. The property is zoned W-R-1-B with an overlay of Specific Plan - 1 (SP-1). The Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan (SP-1)was originally approved on July 19, 1991 and amended on January 19, 1994. The Specific Plan's purpose was to allow the construction of a destination resort, known as Canyon Park Resort&Spa and establish land use designations for surrounding properties. The specific plan area consists of 746 acres on South Palm Canyon Drive, southerly of Murray Canyon Drive,which includes the subject 50.49 acre parcel. SP-1 included up to 900 residential units, a 400 room resort hotel, including a spa and fitness complex, an 18-hole 7/7 championship golf course and clubhouse, and accessory recreational and commercial facilities. Specific Plan implementation is to be by planned development district and subdivision maps. The applicant desires to subdivide a portion of what is shown in the approved Specific Plan as Planning Area 6 into 89 single-family lots. The property is vacant but was previously subdivided (Tract 18087) and subsequently reverted to acreage through a lot line adjustment. The specific plan amendments will facilitate the design of the single-family project. The overall density is well within the adopted master plan allowance of over 100 units. Access to the property will be from a gated entry on Bogert Trail. Thirty feet of right-of-way and public utility easement is proposed to be dedicated from the subject tract to the City of Palm Springs. Existing improvements consist of a two-lane undivided, unstriped roadway. Internal circulation consists of a series of private streets and a cul-de-sac. Roadways within the subdivision would be privately maintained as would the four(4) lettered lots that include landscaping in front of the subdivision on Bogert Trail. The Planned Development District includes adjustments to the R-1-13 property development standards, namely, minimum lot size, building height, reduction in front setbacks, and allowance of detached garages. The R-1-13 zone requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet. The proposed minimum lot area is 14,000 square feet with unit size yet to be determined. Lot sizes range from 14,000 square feet to 28,025 square feet. The maximum building height permitted within the R-1-B zone is 18 feet. The proposed building height is 22 feet. While the building height of 22 feet exceeds the zone requirements, it is consistent with the guidelines in SP-1, which has approved building heights of up to 24 feet. The required front setback in an R-1-13 zone for the main residence and garage is 25 feet,with detached garages only permitted in R-1-A and R-1-AH Zones. The applicant is proposing front setbacks for the residences of 10 feet and attached or detached garages with front setbacks of 20 feet. The remainder of the proposal conforms with R- 1-B property development standards. Please refer to Table 2 for modifications to property development standards. The Planned Development District also includes adjustments to the Palm Canyon Wash improvements. The western levee will provide 100 year flood protection through a rock lined levee that will extend the depth of the project. There will be an encroachment into the floodway. The previously approved bench levee provided 25 year flood protection with some golf located in the 100 year flood area. As the golf has been relocated to Planning Area 4, the applicant has proposed modifications to the flood control program. Final channel design will be subject to City and RCFCWCD review, approval, and permits. Table 1: Surrounding General Plan Designations, Zoning, and Land Uses General Plan Zoning Land Uses North PR, SP-1 W-R-1-B, SP-1 Canyon South Golf Course South L2, SPA R-1-13, SP-1 Single Family Residential (Tract 16579) East W, SP-1 W, R-1-13, SP-1 Palm Canyon Wash, Vacant West L2, PR, SP-1 W-R-1-13, SP-1 Single Family Residential, Vacant 74aft%aw ANALYSIS The General Plan designation for the property is L2 (Very-Low Density Residential 2 units/acre), and SP-1. Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan #1 is intended to adhere to the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan. The SP-1 has clustered density into various development areas to provide for larger grouping of golf, hotel, and residential uses. SP-1 allocated over 100 units to the subject site. The proposal is for an 89-unit, gated, single family residential community. The Specific Plan also makes clear that while there is a minimum lot area, the size could be altered to meet planning, market, and other conditions. The Planning Commission supports the modifications to the R-1-13 lot size, building height, setbacks, and provisions for detached garages. The proposal will be compatible with surrounding land uses because the properties are located within the Specific Plan. The Palm Canyon Wash and Tract 18087 are to the east, single family residences are to the west, the existing Canyon South Golf Course is to the north, and the Andreas Palms subdivision is to the south. The 50 foot wide easement for Avenida Marbella (not constructed)may be abandoned provided the applicant provides access to the Palm Canyon Wash for Riverside County Flood Control and Water Control District (RCFCWCD) equipment and personnel. Bogert Trail will be improved to collector street standards and the private streets that provide internal circulation will incorporate traffic calming designs. The project density is below what was allocated for the site and therefore,will be consistent with planned land uses in the area. Some residences will be located in the 100-year flood zone. Mitigation measures have been proposed to remove the residences from the 100-year flood zone. RCFCWCD requires that the wash have a width of at least 300 feet. A previous redesign of the golf course showed a constriction, below RCFCWCD standards,where the wash adjacent to the subject property and the golf course met. The design of the wash adjacent to the golf course will match the improvements being made as a part of TTM 30046. These issues are addressed in greater detail in the flood control section. Table 2: Modifications to Property Development Standards Required Proposed Minimum Lot Size 15,000 square feet 14,000 square feet Building Height 18 feet 22 feet Front Setbacks Residence 10 feet 25 feet Garages 20 feet 25 feet Garages Attached Detached FLOOD CONTROL Currently, there is no approved master plan of drainage for the area of Palm Springs south of the Murray Canyon levee. The Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan proposed a series of drainage improvements and facilities that essentially function as an area flood control plan. The drainage improvements relative to Tract 30046 are considered part of the overall master planned drainage improvements and are mandatory improvements necessary to safely develop the site. A3J The hydrology study relating to TTM 30046 was completed by Tettemer&Associates in April 2001 and also encompassed TTM 30050, recently approved, and TTM 30047, a withdrawn application. The majority of the proposed storm water runoff mitigation measures in the hydrology analysis dealt with TTM 30050 and TTM 30047, as they are located immediately adjacent to the confluence of runoff generated to the west. However, the subject property is more centrally located within the Specific Plan area, adjacent to the Palm Canyon Wash. The hydrology analysis determined that storm water runoff generated on-site will be directed to the Palm Canyon Wash through a new 30- inch storm drainage system. A new bridge structure is recommended at the South Palm Canyon Drive crossing of the Arenas South drainage channel to provide an all-weather crossing for traffic proceeding to Bogert Trail and further down South Palm Canyon Drive. While the hydrology report has been reviewed and conceptually approved by the City Engineer and RCFCWCD, the funding mechanism and final design for the improvements has yet to be approved. The subject property is designated within a 100-year flood plain and proposes an encroachment into the Palm Canyon Wash, placing 3.74 acres of the proposed development within the flood plain (see attached exhibits). The realignment of the development is consistent with the approved Specific Plan for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa project, although that approval was for elevated golf course construction in a portion of the wash. In order to provide for protection of the proposed residential development from 100-year flooding within the Palm Canyon Wash, the hydrology analysis recommends the creation of a new flood wall protection system (levee). The levee shall be constructed to RCFCWCD standards. In addition, the appearance of the levee shall be softened in compliance with the Sierra Club Settlement Agreement which includes renaturalization using local rock materials and desert wash landscaping to blend in with the surroundings. The applicant is proposing that the levee be a rock lined facility as opposed to a concrete lined facility. The final design is subject to City and RCFCWCD approval. In the event a concrete lined channel is required, Planning Commission recommends that rock lining be added to soften the visual impact. Pursuant to Section 93.17.00 of the zoning ordinance regarding flood damage prevention, future pad elevations for proposed residential development adjacent to the Palm Canyon Wash shall be raised such that the finished grade is at least 1.5 feet above the base flood elevation. Additionally, storm water runoff generated west of TTM 30046 requires that future pad elevations for proposed residential development be established 2 feet above the highest adjacent natural grade. As a result of the mitigation, the project site will be taken out of the 100-year flood zone. However, in order to formally remove the site from the 100-year flood plain the applicant will have to apply for and process with the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) based on fill, if applying to FEMA after grading of the tract and establishment of pad elevations, or Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) based on fill, if applying to FEMA prior to grading of the tract and establishment of pad elevations,for removal of that portion of the project site with a Zone AO flood zone designation. Additionally, the applicant will have to apply for and process with FEMA a LOMR, if applying to FEMA after construction of the levee wall system, or CLOMR, if applying to FEMA prior to construction of the levee wall system, for removal of that portion of the project site with a Zone Al flood zone designation adjacent to and within the Palm Canyon Wash. The proposed project has incorporated the channel configuration of the approved Specific Plan with some modification of the design of the levee. The approved plan, with the golf land use, showed a benched levee(i.e. lifted above the flow line of the main channel),which would provide protection 74q up to a 25-year storm event. The current development proposal follows approximately the same footprint as the golf but is now entirely residential development. The adjacent Canyon South Golf Course, to the north of the subject property, previously included a design of the channel that showed a constriction below the 300 foot wide standard, as required by RCFCWCD. However, the current property lessee has indicated that they intend to remove the constriction and therefore, match the improvements as proposed by TTM 30046. CANYON PARK RESORT & SPA ANDREAS PALMS AND SIERRA CLUB JUDGEMENT The Sierra Club Settlement Agreement for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan was filed with the Riverside County Clerk on August 18, 1993. The document is binding upon the City, Redevelopment Agency, and the developer(s). The findings in the judgement that directly relate to TTM 30046 include equestrian access in Palm Canyon Wash and flood control improvements to Palm Canyon Wash. The judgement indicated that the developer shall grant easements to the Parks, Open Space, and Trails Foundation or to the City of Palm Springs for public hiking and equestrian access on portions of the Specific Plan area as shown in Exhibit D and D1 of the agreement. Portion#4 on Exhibit D refers to the Palm Canyon Wash immediately adjacent to TTM 30046. The judgement calls for a 30 foot wide hiking and equestrian path in the Palm Canyon Wash bottom. With respect to Palm Canyon Wash flood control facilities, the judgement states that improvements,"shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the preliminary flood control design drawings and specifications set forth in Exhibits F, F-1, F-2, and F-3, and as conditionally approved by the District', (i.e. RCFCWCD). With respect to the final design for Palm Canyon Wash flood control, the judgement states that the developer agrees not to proceed with flood control work without including the following criteria: • the"design flood" acceptable to all parties (including the District)for purposes of review is the 100 year flood event • the average bottom width for Palm Canyon Wash shall be at least 300 feet, as measured from the east of the wash, as shown in Exhibit F and F-1 • there shall be no grade control structures in Palm Canyon Wash • the levee shall be placed on the west side of the Wash only • the east side of the wash shall be left in its natural condition • after construction, the developer will diligently prosecute the establishment of native desert non-woody shrubs along the west levee embankment • the developer shall not use any design or material in its levees which will prevent or hamper the successful return of such native shrubs on the levees • an equestrian ramp shall be provided on the west bank revetment/levee for the purpose of accessing Palm Canyon Wash During construction, the judgement states that the developer shall provide temporary equestrian access by refraining from using Palm Canyon Wash as a haul route, limiting flood control construction work for Palm Canyon Wash from May 1 to November 1 of any calendar year, and providing interim alternate equestrian access for passage and access to existing trails, no closer than 300 feet to grading, construction, flood control work, or construction access roads. In response to the findings made in the Sierra Club Settlement Agreement, the applicant has proposed a 30 foot wide levee access road, a wash design that meets or exceeds the criteria set forth in the judgement, and agreement with the requirements for access during construction. A cross section comparing the applicant's proposal to the judgement criteria is attached to this report. The applicant's proposal meets or exceeds the design in the agreement. At Section AA of Exhibit F-3, the settlement agreement showed a channel bottom of 350 feet. The proposed project now features a channel bottom of 520 feet, thereby increasing the amount of the Palm Canyon Wash which will be left intact and available as habitat and recreational purposes: This adjustment will decrease encroachment and disturbance of the Palm Canyon Wash by 1.7 acres. Grading of the project site impacts approximately 1.7 acres of the jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)and California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG). Grading limits for the project would result in the discharge of fill material into approximately 0.40 acres of ephemeral waters of the United States and impact 1.66 acres of desert riparian habitat under CDFG jurisdiction. As a result, the developer shall be required to apply for an ACOE 404 permit and CDFG 1603 agreement, and comply with all mitigation measures. The judgement criteria for the final design of Palm Canyon Wash improvements have been incorporated into the 1994 Mitigation Monitoring Program for Amendment to Specific Plan #1. The mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring Program are incorporated by reference into the conditions of approval for TTM 30046. As proposed,the project reduces impacts to the Palm Canyon wash and meet or exceeds the criteria established in the Settlement Agreement. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT In 1991, the City Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for SP-1 and, subsequently, in 1994,the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for amendments to SP-1.This Mitigated Negative Declaration and amendments to SP-1 assessed the environmental impacts resulting from the development of over 100 dwellings on the subject property. The currently proposed 89 unit gated single family residential subdivision is consistent with SP-1. The attached Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared utilizing the previous Final Environmental Impact Report and Negative Declaration for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa. The purpose of the EA is to supplement the FEIR and the 1994 environmental assessment contained in SP-1A by addressing the specific development impacts caused by the Specific Plan Amendments and development of the 50.49 acre site. The Planning Commission found a number of potentially significant impacts, including water, air quality, biological resources, transportation and circulation, fire protection, and cultural resources. Flood control issues have been previously discussed and include the requirement for and the design of the levee, removing future residential development from the 100 year flood zone, a fair share contribution to the bridge overArenas South drainage, and the impacts of the project on land subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game jurisdiction. While the construction of 89 homes and related street improvements will increase the amount of hard surface runoff, the hydrology report indicates that water run-off will only exceed existing run- off by a minimal amount and the timing of the peak flow allows the passing of the flow directly to the wash.Therefore,mitigation facilities are not considered necessary. No impacts will remain after implementation of proposed mitigation measures and project conditions of approval. 7A& In terms of air quality, the project construction and grading will produce short-term diesel fume pollution and dust. As a result, a Fugitive Dust and Mitigation Plan shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. Biological resources that may potentially be affected by the construction of the units are 36.7 acres of creosote bush scrub - cheese-bush dominated and 4.6 acres of desert wash scrub, Casey's June Beetle, and the Desert Tortoise. Impacts to creosote bush scrub and desert wash scrub are not significant because the vegetation is not considered sensitive. However, impacts to 1.66 acres of desert wash scrub habitat under the jurisdiction of ACOE and CDFG are considered significant and appropriate mitigation measures shall be required. The Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Monte Soreno Project, dated December 2001 and updated September 2002,found Casey's June Beetle on site. Potential impacts to habitat will be mitigated via an in-lieu fee of $600 per acre for impacts to 41.3 acres of creosote bush scrub and desert wash scrub habitat (total $24,780.00) to be paid to the City or a Habitat Conservation entity. Probable signs of Desert Tortoises (i.e. scat and burrow signs)were detected onsite in 2001. The species could potentially occur onsite and therefore, a clearance survey will be performed prior to issuance of grading permits. Final development plans are required to be compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Amendment to Specific Plan #1. The applicant is requesting to not construct sidewalks and streetlights based on previously approved requests. Other developments have not previously been required to provide sidewalks or streetlights, to be consistent with surrounding development, the General Plan, and dark sky ordinance. The proposed project is calculated to generate 890 additional daily trips, less than the number evaluated in the approved Specific Plan. TTM 30046 is also proposing a development that is below the density allocated for Planning Area 6. The installation of new signals,when warranted, on South Palm Canyon Drive and Murray Canyon and South Palm Canyon Drive and La Verne Way was included as a part of the amended Specific Plan. The site is located outside the Fire Department's 5-minute response time area and therefore will require automatic fire sprinklers for every home until a new fire station is constructed, as described in the proposed Specific Plan Amendments. An archaeological study conducted for the FEIR for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa showed no resources of historical or archaeological significance. However, recognizing the subject property's proximity to a cultural resource, potentially significant materials could be unearthed by grading and construction activities. As a result, archaeological monitoring will be provided during rough grading and all activities will halt if potentially significant remains or artifacts are found. The Planning Commission found that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved 1994 Mitigation Monitoring Program for Amendment to Specific Plan #1. 767 NOTIFICATION All property owners within four hundred(400)feet of the subject site have been notified. In addition, the EA was sent to the State Clearinghouse, local utilities, interested parties, and appropriate federal agencies. As of the writing of this report, staff has received comments from various agencies regarding the EA and from adjacent property owners who expressed concerns regarding increased traffic on Bogert Trail. Written comments are included as attachments to this report. Director of P_ nning and Zoning �City Manager ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Planning Commission Minutes for October 9, 2002 3. Exhibits (4) showing encroachments and cross section of Palm Canyon Wash 4. Canyon Park Resort & Spa Andreas Palms and Sierra Club Judgement (incorporated by reference) 5. 2003 Mitigation Monitoring Program for Amendment to Specific Plan #1A (incorporated by reference) 6. Environmental Assessment 7. Letter from Palm Springs Unified School District dated September 12, 2002 8. Letter from Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians dated October 3, 2002 9. Letter from Desert Water Agency dated October 16, 2002 10. Letter from California Department of Fish and Game dated November 27, 2002 11. Letter from Sierra Club dated June 24, 2003 12. Response to comments 13. Ordinance 14. Resolution 15. Conditions of Approval NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Case No. 5.0881 - PD-269 TTM 30046 North of Bogert Trail, east of Goldenrod Lane, west of Palm Canyon Wash NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of July 30, 2003. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall,.3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider Case 5.0881 - PD-269 TTM 30046, an application by Palm Canyon, LLC for a Planned Development District(PDD)and Tentative Tract Map 30046 for the development and subdivision of 50.49 acres into 89 single family residential lots and associated on-site and off-site improvements. The PDD application requests approval of modified property development standards for lot size, front yard setbacks, garage setbacks, and building height. Proposed modifications affect on-site development are consistent with Specific Plan #1. Associated improvements include construction of a flood control channel within the Palm Canyon Wash. The property is located north of Bogert Trail, east of Goldenrod Lane, and west of the Palm Canyon Wash, Zone W-R-1-B and SP-1, Section 35. An Environmental Assessment and Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa has been prepared and will be reviewed by the City Council at the meeting. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for the subject proposal. Members of the public may view this document in the Department of Planning and Building, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the City Council hearing. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the City Council hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Jing Yeo, Associate Planner, (760) 323-8245. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk Publish: The Desert Sun 7-19-03 7)q? VICINITY MAP VERNE WAY � I URRY 8 SITE ys 9 BOGERT TRAIL 8 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO, 5.0881-PD269 TTM 30046 DESCRIPTION APPLICANT Palm Canyon, LLC Application for the.subdivision of 50.49 acres into 89 singe fafmlly residential lofts, Zone W-R-1-B and SP-1, Section 35. Page 6 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 09, 2002 Condition No. 57 to be allowed to be deferred to covenant; Condition No. 61 shall be amended to require private street width of 37 feet and remove requirement for sidewalks; Condition No. 62 shall be amended to allow the developer the option to construct curb and gutter configuration to the approval of the City Engineer; Condition No. 63 shall be deleted; Condition No. 65 shall be amended to reference Condition No. 83; Condition No. 82 shall be amended to be subject to City Attorney review and report of findings to City Council. Planning Commission adjourned for a break at 3:00 p.m. and was called back to order at 3:10 p.m. Case 5.0881 —PD 269—TTM 30046—Application by Palm Canyon, LLC to amend Specific Plan #1 by revising Figure 7 of Section E Design Concept-Resort Facilities to replace golf as a land use in Parcels#10, 11, and 15 with a residential component and a request to subdivide 50.49 acres into 89 single family residence lots, a Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map 30046 for property located north of Bogert Trail, east of Goldenrod Lane, west of Palm Canyon Wash. Commissioner Caffery and Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to conflicts of interest. Commissioner Matthews served as Chair. Director reported that the 1991 Specific Plan was revised in 1994 as a result of litigation with the Sierra Club and that staff worked carefully with the applicant to ensure this single family residential, private, gated community is consistent with the intent of Specific Plan #1 and the stipulated judgement and clarified that legal issues are not under review at today's meeting. He stated that staff has received phone calls from residents of Bogert Trail with concerns about increased traffic; however, he explained that the proposed amendment will result in fewer trips than were previously approved. Jing Yeo,Associate Planner, reported that average lot size is 16,483 square feet—with the largest lot being more than 28,000 square feet. She reported that the purpose of the 746-acre Specific Plan was to allow the construction of a destination resort (Canyon Park Resort & Spa) and to establish land use designations for surrounding properties. She reported that access to the property will be from a gated entry on Bogert Trail and that private roadways within the subdivision would be privately maintained as would the lettered lots in front of the subdivision on Bogert Trail. She reported that the Planned Development District (PDD) includes adjustments to development standards (e.g. lot sizes, building height, setbacks) and that the applicant has proposed front setbacks for the residences of ten feet and garages with setbacks of 20 feet. She reported that the PDD also includes adjustments to the Palm Canyon Wash improvements so that the western levee will provide 100-year flood protection throughout the depth of the project (and that staff and applicant will work with FEMA to assure compliance with all standards). She explained that, as the golf has been relocated,the applicant is proposing some changes to the flood control program and 74 ft Page 5 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 09, 2002 traditionally does not allow developers to mass grade and subdivide hillside property. He explained that this property is unique as most of the property has been disturbed by portions of the existing golf course and staff is asking for that area to be cleaned up. He suggested that the condition not be deleted but that the developer submit a preliminary grading plan for review and approval by the Planning Commission. He reported that, in the existing neighborhood, many pads are not built up and the maximum building height at the time the older neighborhood was developed was 166"and that the current building height limit is 18 feet; making pads and building height of new residences a possible issue to monitor. Staff reviewed grade differences for Planning Commission. Director commented that it is important that there be no potentially toxic plant materials outside the building area. Regarding the monitoring of grading for archeological resource purposes, he reported that the Tribe requested the subject condition as it was a mitigation measure in the Environmental Impact Reportforthe golf course and that, depending on the depth of grading,there could be resources discovered during further grading. City Engineer reported that staff prefers that pedestrian traffic is on a path other than streets but, as Condition No. 61 refers to a private street,, the deletion of that condition is acceptable. Regarding Condition No. 57, he explained that the General Plan calls for sidewalks on public streets and has, therefore, been recommended by staff. He stated that wedge curbs are acceptable as a means to carry water and that it is staff's intent not to have dirt shoulders. He agreed with Mr. Sanborn that Condition No. 77 should pertain only to those acres to be graded. Regarding Condition No. 82, he explained that the City's Master Plan of Flood Control and Drainage Ordinance requires this condition and, as an option, the developer has the choice of paying the implementation fees(which are deposited into a general non-property-specific account for future improvements) or constructing the facilities (Line 14) as the property is improved. Commissioner Caffery, Vice Chair, invited the applicant to comment. Mr. Sanborn stated that he felt there is no benefit to the property from the Line 14 requirement as the property is currently served from water from by the existing storm drain. Mr. Paul Seltzer, project attorney, contended that the property is not subject to the fee as mitigation measures are intended to be implemented for effects caused by the specific development and that the proposed development does not cause an effect. Director reported that the City Attorney could consult with Mr. Seltzer and the City Engineer and then report findings to City Council prior to its review of this case. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Marantz 6-0, 1 absent) to order filing of Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve subject to Conditions of Approval in Staff Report with the following changes: Condition No.9 shall be amended to read"...elevations at or below those of the adjacent..."; Condition No. 18 shall be amended to remove the words"priorto recording the Final Map."; Condition No. 19 shall be amended to delete the first sentence and insert, "Preliminary grading plan to be reviewed and approved by Planning Commission"; JJ4+I )- t Page 7 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 09, 2002 that the final channel design will be subject to City and County review. She reviewed exhibits for the Planning Commission, outlining changes in golf course and other land use due to ownership pattern changes. She confirmed that staff compared Sierra Club stipulated judgement with the amendments and found.substantial consistency. She reported that, with mitigation measures as conditioned, environmental impacts will be less than significant. She reported that the Palm Springs Unified School District has informed the City that schools are now at capacity and no new schools are planned to be built. She reviewed maps for the Planning Commission. Director also reviewed maps for Planning Commission, showed Peninsular Bighorn Sheep critical habitat locations,and discussed the San Jacinto Mountains and Santa Rosa Mountains ewe group locations, purported paths of travel, and sheep management issues (e.g. domesticizing and/or endangering). He stated that staff does not feel that the golf use is a threat to sheep (although roadways can be a danger) and sheep sitings/documentation have been insufficient for staff to believe sheep are present at this site nor do they use it as an active corridor but, he stated, there are many divergent opinions on this issue. He reported that, in meetings with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game,these agencies gave support to the proposed corridor and layout of the project with regard to range and habitat. He stated that a cooperative acquisition (by State, Tribal Council, and Riverside County) of habitat provides a natural corridor with a majority of undisturbed area — better suited for long-term sheep survival. He stated that_Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game have expressed concern regarding a portion of land to the west (which includes an alluvial fan) which is not subject to today's application and that the applicant is aware of those concerns and will address in the future but no concern was expressed by Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the subject property. He clarified that the application for that parcel is incomplete and not being processed at this time. He stated that staff feels the subject application is consistent with good resource management and the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan. He reported that staff has researched potential impacts to the Casey's June Beetle (which is not a rare or designated species); however, sightings have been infrequent, sporadic, and their range undetermined; therefore mitigation measures are not apparent. He reported that the developer has offered, in the absence of defined,scientific data,to donate$600 per acre(using the fringe-toed lizard mitigation fee as an example)to be set aside for possible future mitigation efforts. He summarized that staff has disclosed, analyzed, evaluated, and reported the issues as the CEQA process requires. Commissioner Matthews opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Michael Kaiser addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is a resident of the subject area and is representing three other residents who would be directly impacted by this development. He stated that three homes are located to the east side (on Goldenrod Lane) and one is located to the north side of Bogert Trail. He stated that he feels there is no demonstrated reason for _changing the land use locations and that his home(and those of the neighbors he represents)were designed to take advantage of golf course views and not of rooftops and walls. He stated that he is concerned regarding proposed lot sizes and that he and the neighbors relied upon the Specific Plan as it was when making home buying decisions. He also mentioned a concern with increased traffic due to the development and stated that a traffic study should be done. He stated that there are blind curves, a lot of traffic currently, and that Andreas Hills residents have no other outlet than a7M3 _� -u y Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 09, 2002 Bogert Trail which is already inadequate to carry traffic. He stated that he feels the Planning Commission would be premature in making a decision without reviewing a traffic report. He asked why Murray Canyon could not be made into an outlet. He also stated that he feels it is inappropriate to state that, since the beetle situation is unknown, it would be acceptable to pay the $600 per acre fee to a general fund and go ahead with development that could decrease wildlife immediately. He stated that there has already been an impact to the wildlife in the area. He stated that he feels there should be less density and that he(and neighbors)want to keep property values up—that their homes are valued at$650,000 and$700,000 and that building$300,000 to$400,000 homes adjacent to them would reduce property values to existing homes. He stated that he felt the proposed amendments are not appropriate. He stated that nearby residential development has much less density. He contended that staff has not adequately researched this proposal. Mr. Marshall Gilbert addressed the Planning Commission to state that he resides on Goldenrod Lane and that he has owned many homes in Palm Springs but that this is the first time he has addressed the Planning Commission on an issue. He stated the Director of Planning &Zoning has been very helpful and has made his building experience in 1997 a pleasant one; however, he stated that the location of his house is of the ultimate importance and that he would not have built at his site if he had known that golf would not be the nearby use and that the City needs more golf. He further stated that he has a lot of beetles at his residence and that just because the sheep and beetle situation is not understood, it should not be ignored. He stated that his home has a beautiful view now but that would be changed to a view of a nearby block wall if this project were to be approved as presented. He stated that he felt it would be fundamentally unfair to change the zoning at this point and that, if notes were called on current homes, there could be financial implications as well. He stated that he didn't feel that, in America,you can say"That was then and this is now." He stated that Goldenrod Lane and South Palm Canyon Drive is probably the most dangerous intersection in the City already and that he has witnessed many near-fatal accidents. He asked the Planning Commission not to hang current residents out to dry by approving this application. He stated that his children find many different types of lizards at his home and that the potential impact to this wildlife should not be ignored. He stated that he does not understand how this change of zone could happen in America or in Palm Springs. Mr. Marvin Roos, Mainiero Smith &Associates, project planners and engineers, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the development team has been working as much as possible with the neighborhood and that, originally, the property owner intended to work with the Tribe on the leased land and the Canyon Hotel property in trying to review the Canyon Resort and Spa project (e.g. homes, golf, resort). He stated that, ultimately, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Development Authority(ACDA)decided to keep the golf use on leased land and were not interested in commingling homes and golf and that another developer will bring the Canyon Hotel and golf to the City for review and approval. He stated that the original premise of the Canyon Specific Plan was that there would be one master developer for the entire property; however, due to changes in ownership,the application has been submitted as proposed. He stated that houses will be priced at approximately $700,000 and much interest is anticipated in the upscale Palm Springs real estate market. He stated that he believes the application conforms to the settlement agreement with the Sierra Club for that property controlled by the applicant. He stated that there were more than 100 homes on this property in previous agreements and only 89 lots now. He stated that a 9-hole executive course would not be feasible nor would it be in compliance with the 007A /V -p 1 A Page 9 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 09, 2002 Specific Plan. He stated that the intent is to bring high quality homes into the area. He stated that the development team has met with the Sierra Club, Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and City staff and, from those meetings, staff feels that primary concerns have been addressed in the application as proposed. Regarding the Staff Report and Environmental Assessment findings, he stated that the wash is an average of over 300 feet in width although the staff report mentions a 520 foot width —that is a particularly wide spot in the wash. He stated that the development team will work with the engineers for the ACDA as set forth in the settlement agreement to widen the wash to the 285 foot width minimum for the remaining bottlenecked area. Regarding biology and wildlife, he stated that the property is almost completely surrounded by the urban pattern of the Canyon area. He requested that Condition No. 23 be amended to allow the development team to work with FEMA on grading specifics and stated that he does not anticipate pad heights being higher than those of existing residences. Regarding Condition No. 34 he stated that the development team does not agree that the project should be subject to Fair Share contribution for a bridge structure at South Palm Canyon Drive which has not been adopted or approved and that the team is working with the ACDA for an overall flood'control improvement program contribution as a universal benefit for the Bogert Trail area. He requested that-Condition No. 37 allow a rock-lined, ungrouted levee so that, per the settlement agreement, it can be revegetated. He stated that it is unclear whether or not Palm Canyon, LLC is a party to the Sierra Club settlement legally. He commented that the 30 foot wide levee access road mentioned in the Staff Report is in error and that,perhaps,the reference is to the 15 foot wide flood . .control trail necessary. He clarified that the Staff Report mentions 1.7 acres of jurisdictional waters ,but that is a State jurisdiction and Federal jurisdiction is .4 acres and the developer is working to -make that reduction. He stated that the development team is available for questions. Ms. Joan Taylor addressed the Planning Commission to state that she represents the Sierra Club and that she has submitted written comments regarding the application (on file in the Planning & Zoning Department) and recently met with the development team and City staff to review the stipulated judgement. She stated that the Sierra Club will review the developer's plan for revegetating the levee. She stated that the stipulated judgement states that successors of ownership (e.g. Palm Canyon, LLC) are obligated on issues such as preservation and liquidated damages. She noted that the amendment to Specific Plan 1 is not part of the settlement which was settled in 1993 and the amendment arose separately. She stated that one of the Sierra Club's main concerns is the"piece-meal" approach to development of the property and that CEQA does not permit this type of development. She stated that there are circumstances heretofore unforseen (e.g. the presence of Casey's June beetle) regarding endangered species and that an Environmental Impact Report is now necessary. She stated that nowhere in the Coachella Valley is the $600 per acre fee paid for Casey's June beetle mitigation. She stated that there is new information regarding Peninsular Bighorn Sheep which should be considered (e.g. connecting the two ewe groups). She stated that the Sierra Club believes that the applicant is responsible for impacts to rare and endangered species just as it is obligated for funding flood control and traffic mitigation caused by subject development. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Matthews called Mr. Marshall Gilbert to the podium for a final comment per his request. Mr. Gilbert stated that, during the Public Hearing, the Director reviewed a vicinity map with him relative to the location of his house and he clarified that he was aware that with, or without, this Page 10 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 09, 2002 development, his home would not have a view of a golf course. He stated that the proposed project is not palatable to him and that increased density will be unsafe for children in the area. He urged the Planning Commissioners to make the right traffic turn on Goldenrod Lane before taking action on the proposed project. Commissioner Conrad asked staff to address Ms. Taylor's comment concerning "piece-meal" development. Director reviewed maps,parcel ownership,approved projects, Indian-owned land,and development trends of the area for the Planning Commission. He stated that the ACDA owns much of the property in the area and that staff anticipates the hotel will be moved to the original site in the near future but has not received confirmation at this time. He stated that the fundamental concern seems to be the impact of the amount of property set aside for conservation and he confirmed that Palm Canyon, LLC is aware that full development of the adjacent parcel would be highly controversial. He reported that the ownership fragmentation has reduced the number of homes, increased the size of the lots, relocated golf use, removed homes from the floodplain. He stated that a Traffic Study was prepared in 1991 which anticipated more density than proposed utilizing Bogert Trail. He commented that the City Engineer requested a clarification/refined traffic analysis (not a new traffic study) due to the change in hotel driveways which may impact the traffic mitigation proportionate share. He clarified that running a road north to Murray Canyon was on the City's General Plan in the past; however, was removed as there was not enough property to accomplish this without a bridge or encroaching into the flood plain and would not be environmentally feasible. He clarified that the application is an amendment to the Specific Plan to move golf and develop property with houses and that the Planned Development District was approved by the City Council as an Ordinance without specifying land use, lot size, or locations of homes. He stated that it was always anticipated that there would be residential development adjacent to those homes on Goldenrod Lane and reviewed a 1994 diagram for the Planning Commission of the approved development plans which included removal of the lake, homes(some attached and/or clustered units), and property line walls throughout the subject area. Commissioner Marantz commented that one of the problems with traffic in the subject area is that people are driving too fast and asked the City Engineer to comment. Dave Barakian, City Engineer, stated that revised Conditions of Approval specifically address the current development plans and include traffic calming measures. Commissioner Conrad asked Mr. Roos to address the"piece-meal"approach to the development. Mr. Roos stated that the ACDA plans for hotel location will likely be formalized in the near future and the levee at Murray Canyon will move somewhat south to match up with drainage coming from Canyon Heights (condominium project to the west). He reported that Terre Nova has been hired by the ACDA for coordination of the amendment(moving the hotel from the Alturas property back down). He stated that the development team does not see the project as "piece-meal" as ownership patterns changed over the past several years and that the development is not significantly different than would be if the property was all under one owner. He stated that it was expected that the project would have come to Planning Commission about one year ago; however, unforseen circumstances with Canyon Vista, LLC caused a delay. He stated that the proposed development is a significant improvement over what was previously approved. '007A Its Page 11 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 09, 2002 Commissioner Matthews asked the project biologist to address whether or not Casey's June beetle is a rare, endangered, or threatened species. Mr. Brock Ortega, Dudek&Associates reported that the beetle is a Federally sensitive species but not listed as threatened or endangered. Director reported that the $600 per acre fee would be deposited into the City's Open Space fund and, if and at such time as mitigation measures/conservation actions are determined for the Casey's June beetle, participation would be to that level. He clarified that the beetle has not appeared on a regular and routine basis on the subject property. Mr. Roos stated that the $600 per acre mitigation fee has been applied to two other subdivisions in the South Palm Canyon area and the development and this proposal would be consistent with those approvals. M/S/C (Grence/Matthews 4-0, 2 abstain, 1 absent)to order filing of Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve subject to Conditions of Approval in Staff Report and that staff will work with applicant regarding FEMA map processing, Case 5.0916—Application by Matthew Dragicevich Charitable Remainder Trust for a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to redesignate 5.11 acres of land located at 4155 Matthew Drive from M15 (Medium Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) and C (Conservation) and to rezone from R-2 (Multiple Family Residential) and R-1-AH (Single Family Residential) to C-M (Commercial Manufacturing) and 0-20 (Open Land), Section 30. Continued from the meeting of September 11, 2002. Director reported that the applicant has requested a continuance in orderto have time to complete a revised program for presentation to the Planning Commission after having recently performed a full evaluation of the property. M/S/C (Grence/Marantz 6-0) to continue to the meeting of November 13, 2002 per applicant request. CONSENT AGENDA: None. MISCELLANEOUS: None. COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: I� Commissioner Shoenberger volunteered to representthe Planning Commission at the City Council Cabinet meeting of October 10, 2002 as both Chairman Klatchko and Vice Chair Caffery are unable to attend. r 61 t AL t TH I AREA�BY? A'G�.D ", a l I 1, r - L..1 �'% //r ,P✓`� r,- :: A,r /V Ib r i; i :.% IAS f OTT N (PR OP I$TURBtb OSED PLAN) s' 1 F /�,a � �i �;:, J:� } L we.•° f;._s I J,v.`ip,'? ,l Af gyp;.' /'' ;�? NT Ek yy'..•`..�' \/ -�...� �.,-�,'' •li ; ILIM OF'l DI TURI .,WASH B � fSET frEFAENT'A EEMENTT'r 9,9 If i Is 0 200 400 600 ' �.. a` �• � ` j' ,' I m� SCALE IN FEET ©Tettemer &Aseocletes PALM CANYON LLC DATE 09/02 consultlnp enpinesns ENGM 'NG - N4 GWEnT . ,u,.m PALM CANYON WASH FIGURE T. TECNNYLCGY Og1VE. IgVINE. CpLIFE11Nl� G'1fi1J CROSS SECTION 11 TICN91 92]-6t)J Fu•.Ig961 I29261 ,E CONTROL 1 �, p f � iII� NI �IJ LINE /�It too-Y95Ah. C 1� 1993 TOPOGRAPHY fW,4 1' � �?lwf SECTION A — A: STA 140+00 I PAD = 531 . 5' PER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, EXHIBIT F-3. 510.ao— _ `� 2H: 1 V f100 YEAR WSEL = 526. 2' \ -- ---------------- ----------- RNGROi TED ' 1993 TOPOGRAPHY 52o.oD— REVETMENT 520' + I I I I I I I I 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 - 700.00 SECTION A - A WSEL BASED ON PRELIMINARY HYDRAULIC STUDIES PREPARED FOR THE PALM CANYON SEE EXHIBIT 1 LLC MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE. APRIL 2001. PALM CANYON LLC DATE Tettemer&Associates 09/02 a o n naultinp enpin aura PALM CANYON WASH EµcwEEtuna - xnx..,[uon � iwwxa FIGURE �o ao. emve. iavise < <.ow�. 9261a CROSS SECTION 2 .1: 1..., aae.e.eo jean sa-.m� 580.00 — 2H: 1V 100 YEAR WSEL = 526. 2'* 550.00 PAD = 531 . 5 ' — ---------- � LINGR —==------ --------- -- --- ROCK 1993 TOPOGRAPHY 4eo.00 — REVETMENT T 520 ± 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.60 SECTION A — A SEE EXHIBIT 2 �It WSEL BASED ON PRELIMINARY HYDRAULIC STUDIES PREPARED FOR THE PALM CANYON LLC MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE. APRIL 2001. ® PALM CANYON LLC DATE Tettemer&Associates PALM "E" "° E In °`"E E Is PALM CANYON WASH �fM EI HEE111N°-MANAUEMENT-fLANXINO EXHIBIT , EYE6 RED HILL AVEN"f.COSTA MEEA.°ALIFORNIA CROSS SECTION 3 T•1:p N TA)R A°.0100 F..: )J 1A)AEA-ED p 1 ' _may / 1 ..: 'I j REMOVAL OF i,N $` 0., A. Xj IMI�S OF UNb1STURB�p 5�,, r A$N1 BOTTOM V L' (PRO,NOSED PLANly Vol f sr ` 1 r '" " / 40 140, sa �� ✓ / { r , i/ u L AO /i''��' 'S' REEMINT 4.1 LIA1'U o''UNDI TURB�,D LEGEND "BO OW jrr (SET 1=NT A EEh�IENT�. 1; OMMIJIM LESS ENCROACHMENT AREA V h! '>� ir, ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT AREA I 0 50 100 200 . SCALE IN FEET ©Tettemer &Associates PALM CANYON LLC DATE 0DATE canuultinp unpineuru 9/02 M GENENT �W PALM CANYON WASH FIGURE T, TEONY FoaN oza,e Tv Is,sl p. „ ENCROACHMENT 4 'Form A Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse,PO Box 3044, Sacramento,CA 95812-3044 916/445-0613 SCH # Project Title: Tentative Tract Map 30046 Lead Agency: City of Palm Springs Contact Person: Douglas R. Evans Street Address: 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way Phone: 760-323-8245 City: Palm Springs CA Zip: 92263-2743 County: Riverside -------------------------------------- --- Project Location: County: Riverside City/Nearest Community: Palm Springs Cross Streets: Bogert Trail and Goldenrod Lane Zip Code: 92262 Total Acres: 41.10 Assessor's Parcel No. 512-190-001 thou 036 et.sea Section: 35 Twp. 4 Range: 4 Base' SBBM Within 2 Miles: State Hwy#: 111 Waterways: Palm Canyon Wash Airports: N/A Railways: N/A Schools: N/A ----------------------------------------- Document Type: CEQA: ❑NOP ❑Supplement/Subsequent FIR NEPA: ❑NOI Other: ❑Joint Document ❑Early Cons (Prior SCH No.) ❑EA ❑Final Document ©Neg Dee ❑Other ❑Draft EIS ❑Other ❑Draft FIR ❑FONSI ----------------------------------------- Local Action Type: ❑General Plan Update ©Specific Plan ❑Rezone ❑Annexation ❑General Plan Amendment ❑Master Plan ❑Prezone ❑Redevelopment ❑General Plan Element ©Planned Unit Development ❑Use Permit ❑ Coastal Permit ❑Community Plan ❑Site Plan ❑X Land Division(Subdivision, etc.) ❑ Other -- --------------------------------------- Development Type: ❑x Residential: UnitsB7 Acres 40.10 ❑Water Facilities: Type MGD ❑Office: Sq.. t. Acres Employees ❑Transportation: Type ❑Commercial: Sqft. Acres Employees ❑Mining: Mineral ❑Industrial: Sqft. Acres Employees ❑Power: Type Watts ❑Educational ❑Waste Treatment: Type ❑Recreational ❑Hazardous Waste: Type ❑Other: -- --------------------------------------- Funding(approx.): Federal $ N/A state $ N/A Total $ N/A -- --------------------------------------- Project Issues Discussed in Document: ®Aesthetic/Visual ©Flood Plain/Flooding ❑Schools/Universities ®Water Quality ❑Agricultural Land ❑Forest Land/Fire Hazard ❑Septic Systems ❑Water Supply/Groundwater ©Air Quality ®Geologic/Seismic ❑Sewer Capacity CK Wedand/Riparian ®Archeological/Historical ❑Minerals ❑Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading nX Wildlife ❑Coastal Zone ❑Noise ❑Solid Waste ❑Growth Inducing ❑Drainage/Absorption ❑Population/Housing Balance ❑Toxic/I-Iazardous 0 Landuse ❑Economic/Jobs ©Public Servmes/Facilities ©Traffic/Circulation ❑Cumulative Effects ❑Fiscal Recreation/Parks ❑Vegetation ❑Other -- --------------------------------------- Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: Vacant Land/W-R-1-B Zone with Specific Plan-1 Overlay/SP1, L2 ----------------------------------------- Project Description: The proposed project includes a planned development district and the subdivision of 40.10 acres into 87 lots for future development as single family residences. Revised 3-31-99 "07 "ftwom- 23 f Reviewing Agencies Checklist Form A,continued KEY _Resources Agency S=Document sent by lead agency _Boating &Waterways X=Document sent by SCH ----Coastal Commission ✓=Suggested distribution —Coastal Conservancy Colorado River Board Environmental Protection Agency _Conservation _Air Resources Board _Fish&Game —California Waste Management Board _Forestry&Fire Protection SWRCB: Clean Water Grants _Office of Historic Preservation _SWRCB: Delta Unit Parks &Recreation —SWRCB: Water Quality _Reclamation Board —SWRCB:Water Rights _ST.Bay Conservation&Development Commission Regional WQCB# ( ) —Water Resources (DWR) Youth &Adult Corrections Business,Transportation & Housing Corrections _Aeronautics —Califomia Highway Patrol Independent Commissions & Offices Energy Commission _CALTRANS District# Native American Heritage Commission _Deparunent of Transportation Planning(headquarters) — _Housing&Community Development —Santa Utilities Commission Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy —Food &Agriculture State Lands Commission Health &Welfare Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Health Services State &Consumer Services Other General Services OLA(Schools) --------------------- -------- ------------ Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date Set° + , lAU2 Ending Date October 5, 2002 Signature Date September 4, 2002 ------- ---------------------------------- Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): For SCH Use Only: Consulting Firm: Mainiero,Smith &Associates Address: 777 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 1 Date Received at SCH City/State/Zip: Palm Springs, CA 92262 Date Review Starts Contact: Marvin Roos Date to Agencies Phone: (760 ) 320-9811 Date to SCH Clearance Date Notes: Applicant. Palm Canyon, LLC Address: 1122 Willow Street, Suite 200 City/State/Zip: San Jose,CA 95125-3157 Phone: (408 ) 279-5200 744o'43 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING INITIAL STUDY Application No(s:): Tentative Tract Map 30046 Case No. 5.0881, Planned Development District (PD) 269 Date of Completed Application: July 12, 2002 Name of Applicant: Palm Canyon, LLC Project Description: Subdivision of 50.49 acres into an eighty-nine (89) single-family residential lots. (Note: See VI for complete project description) General Plan Designation(s): L2 (Residential Low 2), Specific Plan No. 1 (See Attached General Plan diagram and Resolution Proposed General Plan Designation(s): No changes proposed Present Land Use(s): Vacant Existing Zoning(s): W-R-1-B, SP-1 Proposed Zoning(s): No Change 1 I. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See section Yes 2.6 of State CEQA Guidelines. If more than one project is present in the same area, cumulative impact should be considered). II. If "yes" above, does the project fall into any of the Emergency Projects No listed in Section 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines? III. If"no" on II., does the project fall under any of the Ministerial Acts listed in No Section 15268 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines? IV. If "no" on III., does the project fall under any of the Statutory Exemptions No listed in Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines? V. If "no" on IV., does the project qualify for one of the Categorical No Exemptions listed in Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines? (Where there is a reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances, a categorical exemption does not apply). VI. Project Description: The project consists of the subdivision of a 50.49-acre parcel into 89 single-family residential lots. The lots average 15,500 square feet in size. The smallest lot is 13,985 square feet and the largest lot is 32,250 square feet. The property is zoned W-R-1-13 with an overlay of Specific Plan-1 (SP-1.) The property was included in a planning area within SP-1 that included 239 residential units (plus the possibility of 60 additional units) and golf. The entirety of the portion of the planning area outside of the subject property's 50.49 acres is designated as golf course. A portion of the subject property is also shown as being part of the overall redesigned golf course. The General Plan designation is SP-1 and Residential Low 2. The Canyon Resort and Spa Specific Plan (SP-1) was originally approved on July 19, 1991 and amended on January 24, 1994. The purpose of the Specific Plan was the construction of a destination resort, named Canyon Park Resort & Spa. The boundary of the specific plan consists of 746 acres on South Palm Canyon Drive, southerly of Murray Canyon Drive, which includes the subject 50.49-acre parcel. The approved Specific Plan will incorporate the following amenities: a guard- gated residential enclave with up to 900 residential units; a 400 room resort hotel, including a spa and fitness complex; an 18-hole championship golf course and clubhouse; and accessory recreational and commercial facilities. Specific Plan implementation is to be by planned development districts and subdivision maps. 2 A single gated entry on Bogert Trail provides access to the site. Thirty (30) feet of street right of way and public utility easement has been dedicated from the subject tract to the City of Palm Springs per O.R. 80/105014 and O.R. 821870355. Existing improvements consist of one 2- lane undivided, unstriped roadway. Internal circulation consists of a series of private streets and a cul-de-sac. Roadways within the subdivision would be privately maintained by the homeowners association as would the four (4) lettered lots that include landscaping in front of the subdivision on Bogert Trail. The proposed PDD includes a modification of the previously approved Palm Canyon Wash improvements. The Palm Canyon Wash will be channelized with the width of the floodway remaining as previously approved. The western levee will now provide 100 year flood control protection. The previously approved flood control program included a bench levee with 25 year protection, and golf course facilities within the 100 year flood boundary. With the relocation of the golf course to Parcel #1 in the Specific Plan, the developer proposes to alter the previously approved flood control program. The Specific Plan elements that require revising include deletion of golf from the subject site (no part of the existing golf course is on the subject property), expanding the residential component to cover the site, and reducing the overall residential density in the Planning Area. The Specific Plan called for golf as a use within the subject property's boundary. Spreading golf throughout the overall Specific Plan boundary was workable as long as there is a master developer. Since that is no longer possible, and the golf is mandated by the Agua Caliente Development Authority to remain exclusively on allotted Indian property, the land use element for the Specific Plan is being modified to eliminate golf from the subject site. The project includes extending the hard lining of the Palm Canyon Wash to the northeast corner of the subject property. Past that point, the golf course will act as the edge condition for the wash. VII. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning North: Golf Course, Drainage, W-R-1-B (Single Family Residential with Watercourse overlay) South: Single Family Residential, Vacant, R-1-13 (Single Family Residential) East: Drainage, W (Watercourse) West: Vacant, R-1-13, SP-1 (Specific Plan 1) 3 I )qaw Vill. Surrounding General Plan: North: PR (Parks and Recreation) South: L2, (Low Density, two (2) units per acre) East: W (Watercourse) West: M15/SP-1, (Medium Density, 15 units per acre), Specific Plan 1 IX. Is the proposed project consistent with: If answered yes or not applicable, no explanation is required) City of Palm Springs General Plan ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A Applicable Specific Plan* ® Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance ®Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A South Coast Air Quality Management Plan ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A Airport Part 150 Noise Study ❑ Yes ❑ No ® N/A Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan El Yes ❑ No ® N/A *A minor change is needed to respond to ownership patterns and the existing Indian Land lease now under the control of the Agua Caliente Development Authority. Also, relocation of golf, modification of the design and configuration of the levee, and density reduction amendments will bring the project into consistency with SP-1. X. Are there any of the following studies required? 1. Soils Report No 2. Slope Study No 3. Geotechnical Report No 4. Traffic Study No 5. Air Quality Study No 6. Hydrology Yes 7. Sewer Study No 8. Biological Study Yes 4 AX7 9. Noise Study No 10. Hazardous Materials Study No 11, Housing Analysis No 12. Archaeological Report No 13. Groundwater Analysis No 14. Water Quality Report No 15. Other No Note: As noted in Section XI, a Certified EIR and Environmental Assessment/Negative Declaration have been prepared for SP-1. Technical studies have been prepared and are incorporated by reference into this report 5 7)1 ;S XI. Incorporated herein by reference is the Final Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan Update and the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Canyon Redevelopment Plan and the Canyon Park Resort and Spa. Additionally, the Environmental Assessment (EA) associated with the Amendment to Specific Plan-1 Canyon Park Resort and Spa - Specific Plan- 1A Planned Development District and Development Agreement, the updated Plant and Animal Analysis submitted by James Cornett dated July 14, 2000. Also referenced are the Master Plan of Drainage as Required by the City of Palm Springs for the Andreas Alluvial Cone Dry Canyon Arenas South and North Canyons and Palm Canyon (1800 Feet Downstream of Bogert Trail) Drainage Courses prepared April 2001, the Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Monte Sereno Project prepared by Dudek &Associates, dated December 2001. The SP was approved by City Council on July 19, 1991 and the amendment approval, SP-1A occurred on July 19, 1994. Copies of these documents are available in the Department of Planning & Building located at City Hall, 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California. The FOR for the Canyon Redevelopment Plan and the Canyon Park Resort and Spa included detailed special studies, as described in Section X above. These studies and FEIR were utilized in research for this document. Smith, Peroni and Fox Planning Consultants Inc prepared the reports. Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Would the proposal: Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with general plan designation or X zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental X plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in X the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations X (e.g.impacts to soils or farmlands,or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical X arrangement of an established community(including a low-income or minority community)? 6 1, a) through e) LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. a) The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is Residential Low 2 and Specific Plan #1. Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan SP-1 is intended to adhere to the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan. The SP-1 has clustered density into various development areas within its boundaries to provide for larger groupings of specifically desired uses. The SP-1 was developed to cluster densities to provide for golf, hotel and residential uses. The subject property is designated Residential and Golf by SP-1. The Specific Plan discussed the average lot size, land area and number of lots within each planning area. The development of the SP made clear that the final design of each planning area could be altered to meet planning, market and other concerns. The proposal for this project complies with the lot area, lot configuration and other SP criteria. The property was included in a planning area within SP-1 that included 239 residential units (plus the possibility of 60 additional units) and golf. The entirety of the portion of the planning area outside of the subject property's 50.49 acres is currently a golf course. The project is consistent with the density of the SP-1. The current development proposal is also designed as a gated, walled community. This EA is intended to supplement the FEIR and the environmental analysis contained in SP-1A by specifically addressing the specific development impacts caused by the development of the fifty (50) acre site. All previous mitigation measures are incorporated by reference unless specifically superseded herein. This project is consistent with the analysis of the FEIR and EA (1994) that considered a development alternative based upon the existing zoning and entitlements at the time of its preparation. The property was included in a planning area within SP-1 that included 239 residential units (plus the possibility of 60 additional units) and golf. The majority of the portion of the planning area adjacent to the subject property's 50.49 acres is currently a golf course. The Specific Plan called for golf as a use in the subject property's planning area. This aspect of the Specific Plan is proposed to be amended. The primary reason for the modification is the fact that multiple property owners are now involved versus previously there being a single developer. In addition, the Agua Caliente Development Authority has indicated that the entire golf course would be required to be located on Allotted Indian property. The subject property is owned in fee and would not meet that criterion. A number of amendments to Specific Plan-1 were covered within the approval of Specific Plan-1 A, Case No. 5.0576.1A, on January 19, 1993. The EA for SP-1A augments the Final Environmental Impact report for the Canyon Redevelopment Plan and the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan. Specific Plan-1A includes the relocation of the original hotel to the area west of South Palm Canyon Drive. It included a new golf course layout and areas for residential development. The amendment also moves proposed drainage improvements further to the east. It incorporates a revised circulation plan and flood control program and generally corresponds to the terms and conditions of the Sierra Club Stipulated Judgment of August 18, 1993. Whereas the approved specific plan depicts the golf course "bowing" out to the east slightly into the wash as a 25-year flood bench, the proposed plan follows a similar configuration but would extend the hard lining of the west bank of the Palm Canyon Wash to provide 100-year storm protection for the proposed 89 lot subdivision. The hard lining would be rock-lined and planted 7 07430 with native materials per the Settlement Agreement. The proposed levee location maintains the 300-foot wide channel required by Riverside County Flood Control District and extends into the wash approximately 235 feet from the "straight line" projection of the existing levee. (See Section 4. Water). The Specific Plan element that requires revision is the land use component. The subject property will be exclusively residential and will not include any portion of golf. 1. b) LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. There is no conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project because the project is similar in intensity to the previously approved SP-1. The potential impacts to Desert wash shrub habitat, the Desert Tortoise and the Casey's June Beetle are specifically discussed in Section 7 of this Initial Study. The Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Monte Sereno Proiect, dated November 2001, written by Dudek &Associates, Inc., is also discussed in Section 7. The project is located adjacent to but not within designated Peninsular Bighorn Sheep habitat. Since it is outside designated critical habitat, the project does not conflict with this adopted program 1. c) through e) The areas to the north and west are contained within the Specific Plan, subsequently, there will be no incompatibility with existing land use. The area to the south does not present compatibility issues as it contains vacant and residential properties. Area to the east contains the wash and improvements have been included in the design of the project and are discussed in Section 4 of this Initial Study. Mitigation measures relating to wash habitat are discussed in Section 7 of this Initial Study. There are no agricultural resources or operations within the area, so, the project will have no affect on these types of land uses. The subject property is currently vacant and surrounding properties that are developed are similar in design and density and do not use this site for access; therefore, there is no established community to be disrupted. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local X population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area X either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? 8 0743 / c) Displace existing housing, especially X affordable housing? 2. a) through c) No impact. A review by the Department of Planning and Building indicates the proposed project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. Pre- existing development and subsequent infrastructure surround the site or are in place at nearby locations. Because of these facts the project will not induce substantial growth in the area. No housing will be displaced because the proposed project site is vacant. 3. GEOLOGICPROBLEMS Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to Significant Significant Significant potential impacts involving: Impact unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Fault rupture? X b) Seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic ground failure, including X liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable X soil conditions from excavation, grading and fill? g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? X j) Is a major landform, ridgeline, canyon, X etc. involved? 9 43;L 3. a) to e) and g) to j) NO IMPACT. The subject property has no unique geologic features and is generally level. The only identified geologic hazard related to the site is the ground shaking potential associated with earthquakes. This hazard is common to California as a region. A review of the Seismic Safety Element of the City of Palm Springs General Plan revealed that there are no known unstable earth conditions associated with the subject property. Specific building foundation and soil conditions will be addressed during the building permit stage with required soils reports. The previous EA (1994) required submittal of soils reports to address site-specific concerns in the SP-1 planning area. The future development of structures on the site will be designed to comply with the Uniform Building Code, which mandates requirements for seismic safety construction. There are no new environmental impacts affecting geologic resources. The adopted mitigation measures for SP-1 shall apply to this project and are incorporated by reference. 3f). POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed development will require a substantial amount of grading and material import to both build the rock-lined levee and raise the residential lots above the projected water surface level. Approximately 80,000 yards of fill material will be needed along with appropriately sized rocks needed to create the levee. An approved grading plan incorporating SWPPP and PM10 control measures, as well as engineering measures designed to create a stabilized fill for the residential development will be necessary as part of the improvement plans for the project. Dust control measures for the period starting with clearing and grubbing, during the transport of the importing of materials and during construction must take into account the current status of the region's air quality and lack of attainment of air quality standards. See Section 5 Air Quality for recommended mitigation measures for air quality impacts. 4. WATER Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Would the proposal result in: Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage X patterns, or rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to X water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other X alternation of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in X any water body? 10 47634 e) Changes in currents,or the course or X direction of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, X either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of X groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X I) Substantial reduction in the amount of X groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? j) Are there any on-site or any proposed wells? Yes X No 4. a), b), a), h): POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Currently, there is no approved master plan of drainage for the area of Palm Springs south of the Murray Canyon Levee. The Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan proposed a series of drainage improvements and facilities that essentially would function as an area flood control plan. The hydrology analysis provided in conjunction with TTM 30046 is a continuing refinement of the adopted Specific Plan. This extensive hydrology study, prepared by Tettemer &Associates, dated April 2001, is entitled: "Master Plan of Drainage As Required By the City of Palm Springs For The Andreas Alluvial Cone, Dry Canyon, Arenas South and North Canyons and Palm Canyon (1800 feet Down Stream of Bogert Trail) Drainage Courses, City of Palm Springs." This extensive hydrology study has been prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer and Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCWCD), and encompasses TTM 30046 (identified as the "Needleman Parcel' and further described in the application as "Monte Sereno") and two other proposed developments, TTM 30050 (identified as the "Stich Parcel' further described in the application as EI Portal) previously approved by the City of Palm Springs on June 19, 2002 and TTM 30047 (identified as the "Ganz Parcel' further described in the application as "Alturas"), which is yet to be submitted as a complete application to the City of Palm Springs. The majority of the proposed storm water runoff mitigation measures included in the hydrology analysis related to significant improvements affecting Alturas and El Portal as they are located immediately adjacent to the confluence of runoff generated to the west of these developments. These two developments require storm water runoff mitigation measures such as construction of bank erosion protection, concrete channels, storm drain systems, debris and desilting basins. The Monte Sereno (TTM 30046), however, is located more centrally within the Specific Plan area, adjacent to the Palm Canyon Wash. In accordance with the findings of the hydrology analysis, it 11 713Y has been determined that pre-developed storm water runoff generated on-site will be directed to the Palm Canyon Wash through use of a new 30-inch storm drainage system. Additionally, a new bridge structure is recommended at the South Palm Canyon Drive crossing of the Arenas South drainage channel to provide an all-weather crossing for traffic proceeding to destinations along Bogert Trail and further south along South Palm Canyon Drive. While the Hydrology Report has been approved from an engineering standpoint, there has been no City Council action on a funding mechanism for these more regional facilities. More importantly, however, all of TTM 30046 is designated within a 100-year floodplain, and TTM 30046 proposes a minor encroachment into the Palm Canyon Wash, placing more of the proposed development (3.74 acres) within the designated floodway. This realignment is consistent with the approved Specific Plan for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa project, although that approval was for elevated golf course construction within a portion of the wash. A majority of the site currently is designated as Zone AO (Depth 1), indicated as areas of 100-year flood depths between 1 and 3 feet, with as average inundation of 1 foot. The remaining portion of TTM 30046 extends into an area designated as Zone A13, which is within the defined floodway of Palm Canyon Wash. The Flood Zone designations are based upon examination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community-Panel Number 060257 0008C, revised June 18, 1996, on file with the Engineering Department. In order to provide for protection of the proposed residential development from 100-year flooding within the Palm Canyon Wash, the hydrology analysis recommends placement of compacted fill with concrete erosion protection to create a new flood wall (levee) protection system. In conformance with the City of Palm Springs Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Chapter 93.17 of the Zoning Code), future pad elevations for proposed residential development adjacent to the Palm Canyon Wash shall be established such that the finish grade is at least 1.5 feet above the base flood elevation. Additionally, however, storm water runoff generated west of TTM 30046 requires that future pad elevations for proposed residential development be established a minimum of 1 foot above the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM, or 2 feet in this specific case, above the highest adjacent natural grade. Furthermore, as a result of this mitigation, the project site will be effectively taken out of the 100-year flood zone. However, to formally redesignate the project site it will be necessary for the developer to apply for and process a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) (Based on Fill) for the portion of the project site designated as Zone AO (Depth 1), as well as a Letter of Map Revision for the portion of the project site adjacent to and extending into the Palm Canyon Wash. These LOMR's require processing through FEMA for amendment of the associated FIRM to change the designation of the property from Zone AO and A13 to Zone B or C, outside of the 100-year flooding associated with storm water runoff west of TTM 30046 and associated with the Palm Canyon Wash. The construction of the projected eighty-nine (89) homes and related streets will increase the amount of hard surface runoff. The project will be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that surface runoff can be directed to an approved drainage system and that the future homes built in the development will be protected from 100-year flooding. Elevation of pads for future residential development above the average 100-year flood depth; and construction of storm drainage and flood control improvements, meeting the approval of the City Engineer and RCFCWCD shall be required to mitigate the potentially significant impacts of storm water runoff 12 7*435ow associated with TTM 30046. The proposed project has incorporated the channel configuration of the approved Specific Plan with some modification of the design of the containment levee. The approved design anticipated building a portion of the golf course immediately adjacent to the wash. The golf adjacent to the wash would be "benched," i.e., lifted above the flow line of the main channel and protected up to a 25-year storm event. The residential developments would then be elevated and protected from the 100-year storm event. The current development proposal overlays approximately the same footprint as the previous golf course, but is now totally residential land use. As such, the homes require full,100-year storm protection from the channel edge, which is now proposed as a rock- lined levee with natural plantings incorporated into the surface. Previously, the redesign of the golf course included elimination of a portion of the existing course that created a constriction of the wash channel below the 300 feet required by RCFCWCD. Tentative Tract 30046 does not include any modification of the existing golf course and the final design of the levee must take the existing conditions into account. In the event that the golf course is redesigned (by others) and removes the constriction, then the final design for TTM 30046 would have to interface accordingly. As the adjacent property lessee has indicated that they intend to remove that constriction, the current preliminary grading design is based on the lower surface water elevations calculated for that configuration. If the channel were to remain constricted, the grading plan would have to be revised due to the higher water surface elevation. The current design of TTM 30046 would impact approximately .40 acres of land subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. In addition, approximately 1.66 acres subject to review by the California Department of Fish and Game. As such, the project will be required to obtain permits from both agencies prior to any alteration of the jurisdictional portions of the wash. In addition, a permit may be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. After construction of the levee system, the wash is proposed to be restored as much as possible to its preexisting condition, including removal of all trash and construction debris. Any existing native trees located in the wash shall be maintained if not impacted by the configuration of the levee. Mitigation measure: 1) Design and construction of a 30-inch storm drainage system meeting City and RCFCWCD approval to direct stormwater runoff within TTM 30046 to the Palm Canyon Wash. 2) Design and construction of a flood wall (levee) protection system meeting city and RCFCWCD approval and consistent with the Settlement Agreement with the Sierra Club necessary to protect proposed residential development from Palm Canyon Wash 100-year water surface elevations; 3) Design and construction of on-site rough grading plans for future residential development meeting city approval providing future pad elevations in excess of 2 feet above highest adjacent existing grade and/or in excess of 1.5 feet above the adjacent base flood elevation of the Palm Canyon Wash; 4) Application to FEMA for processing of LOMR's required to amend the associated FIRM for TTM 30046 and to redesignate all proposed residential development from Zone AO and A 123 to Zone B or C; 5) Final grading plans, hydrology analysis and construction plans shall be approved by the Public Works Director and RCFCWCD, as appropriate, prior to issuance of a grading permit; 6) Required LOMR'S shall be submitted and approved by FEMA prior to issuance of 13 ?443(a a certificate of occupancy with TTM 30046; 7) A fair-share contribution toward the construction of the South Palm Canyon Drive bridge over the Arenas South drainage channel or other funding mechanism shall be determined in a method meeting City approval and submitted to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit; 8) Prior to issuance of grading permits the applicant shall obtain a 404 Permit and a 1603 Agreement (if required by law) and shall implement all mitigation measures called for in the 404 Permit and 1603 Agreement at the appropriate time to mitigate the project's impacts on Waters of the United States. 4.c), d), f), g) and j) NO IMPACT. Elements of this proposed project will not affect surface water quality. Conditions of approval will require that run-off levels following construction not be greater than existing run-off. Groundwater direction, rate of flow and quality will not be affected by this project. The construction of Eight-nine (89) homes will not constitute a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater. The design of the Palm Canyon Wash channel improvements will maintain a minimum width of 300 feet pursuant to the requirements of RCFCWCD. 5. AIR QUALITY Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation _ Incorporated a) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture, X or temperature,or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? X a) POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED. The construction of eighty-nine (89) new single-family homes will generate 890 new, additional trips. The project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and SP-1. The FEIR'and EA fully addressed air quality impacts and this project is consistent with impacts analyzed. The density within this project is consistent with the SP-1 and will result in similar impacts. Future project construction and grading activities may produce short-term diesel fume pollution and dust. Since the certification of the EIR for the Specific Plan, the Coachella Valley has been deemed to be in Serious Non-Compliance with Federal air quality standards in regard to particulate matter (Fugitive Dust). The City along with the other jurisdictions and CVAG are currently working under existing rules until EPA approves a new set of rules for the Coachella Valley. Those rules may be in affect at the point that this development is ready to begin grading operations. The applicant will be required to submit a Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan, prepared in accordance with Chapter 8.50 of 14 07 ,437 the Palm Springs Municipal Code regarding Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control. This document shall be submitted for review and approval to the Building Official and AQMD, if required, prior to the issuance of grading, excavation or building permits. In this manner the short term impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Mitigation: 1) Compliance with Chapter 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan shall be required prior to the issuance of grading permits; 2) Submit a Fugitive Dust Program to South Coast Air Quality Maintenance District (AQMD) for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. Such plan shall be consistent with EPA and AQMD rules in affect at the time of issuance of grading permits; 3) All mitigation measures outlined in SP-1 Mitigation Monitoring Program shall apply except where superseded. 5. b) through d) NO IMPACT. The project is not of a nature to expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, cause any change in climate or create objectionable odors. 6• TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Would the proposal result in: Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Estimated Average Daily Trips generated by X the project? (S.F=10; from ITE): 890 trips b) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X c) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g., X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? d) Inadequate emergency access or access to X nearby uses? e) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- X site? f) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or X bicyclists? g) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting X alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 15 **7A38 h) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? X 6. a), and c) LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project is calculated to generate 890 additional daily trips, (ADT). The current Level of Service (LOS) is "A" for Bogert Trail, the least impacted designation for traffic volume, therefore, this volume of traffic would not result in traffic congestion. The adjacent existing and proposed street network have sufficient capacity to manage projected traffic volumes. The project's entry is approximately 250' from the Bogert Trail Bridge. The final engineering for the project will include a sight line analysis including proposed landscape materials to insure adequate visibility. 6.b POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed project is one of three residential development proposed within the amended Specific Plan 1 (SP1) area. The original Specific Plan circulation system proposed a number of changes to the existing traffic circulation system in the area, and included abandonment of Bogert Trail west of the Palm Canyon Wash and the extension of Acanto Drive across the Palm Canyon Wash or realigned north of Andreas Palms to connect with Bogert Trail west of the Palm Canyon Wash. The existing portion of Bogert Trail abandoned between the Palm Canyon Wash and South Palm Canyon Drive was to be used as access to the golf course, residential areas, and Canyon Park Hotel. The original mitigation recommended by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for SP1 included fair share contributions to off-site roadway improvements and installation of new traffic signals at South Palm Canyon Drive and Murray Canyon Drive and at the main entrance (abandoned Bogert Trail). However, the SP1 was amended in January 1994, to relocate the site of the proposed hotel and revise the traffic circulation system to use the existing Bogert Trail alignment and to propose ending Acanto Drive at the Palm Canyon Wash. Although the amended SPI analysis concluded that the proposed SP1 changes at that time would generate more vehicle trips that what was then currently approved in the original API analysis, the analysis determined that the proposed land use plan changes would have similar circulation impacts as those included in the original AP1. As such, the recommended traffic circulation mitigation measures outlined in Table 7, "Circulation Mitigation Measures" of SPI were carried over into the SP1 amendment, and restated in Table 7, "Circulation Mitigation Measures" of the SP1 amendment document. However, a new amendment to the Specific Plan will be required to reflect the proposed development of TTM 30046. This proposed development represents a minor changes to the to the proposed land uses approved in the amended Specific Plan. The overall intensity of the proposed development in the area appears to have decreased, and warrants for traffic signals may not be met with this reduction of intensity. A focused traffic study to update the analysis provided in the SP 1 EIR (as amended) will confirm or delete required mitigation for future traffic signals at South Palm Canyon Drive with Murray Canyon Drive and Bogert Trail, depending upon current and projected traffic volumes in the area and as a result of the proposed development. 6. d) through h) NO IMPACT. No. The project would not create traffic hazard problems based upon the judgment of the Director of Planning and Building and the Public Works Director. Neither 16 `7143 g the proposed private streets nor the existing adjacent street presents hazards to safety from design features or incompatible uses. Bogert Trail is the ingress and egress street. This street provides more than adequate access to nearby uses. Sufficient emergency access and access to nearby uses are provided by the circulation pattern on-site and offsite. Circulation within the project site will be adequate based upon the judgment of the Public Works Director and the Department of Planning and Building. Therefore, there are no prospective significant effects on the environment due to problems related to access. Parking related to the project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and therefore there is no potential for a significant impact on the environment. The Public Works Director and Planning staff have reviewed the site plan for traffic safety. The proposed residential project will not result in increased traffic hazards for pedestrians or bicyclists as it provides improved pedestrian and bicycle access on South Palm Canyon Drive and Acanto Drive. There will be no conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the City with existing street access. There are no railways, waterways or air traffic routes that this project might impact. Mitigation Measures: 1) Prepare and submit a focused traffic study to update the analysis prepared for the amendment to the Specific Plan #1 Environmental Assessment; 2) Determine any revisions or modifications to Table 7 "Circulation Mitigation Measures", of the Amendment to Specific Plan #1 Environmental Assessment; and 3) A fair-share contribution toward the off-site roadway improvements and traffic signals outlined in Table 7, toward the off-site roadway improvements and traffic signals outlined in Table 7, "Circulation Mitigation Measures", of the Amendment to Specific Plan #1 Environmental Assessment, as modified by a focused traffic study, shall be determined in a method meeting City approval and submitted to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit; 4) Payment of TUMF (Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees) shall be made prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Would the proposal result in impacts to: Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact - Mitigation Incorporated a) Endangered,threatened, or rare species or X their habitats(including but not limited to plants,fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species? X c) Locally designated natural communities X (e.g.oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and X vernal pool)? 17 07,41/0 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X f) Is consultation with the California Fish and Yes X No Game or the Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, as a trustee agency, required? 7. a), b), e) POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. A complete biological survey was conducted for TTM 30046 by Dudek & Associates, Inc., (Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Monte Sereno Proiect dated December 2001). Focused surveys were conducted for Casey's June beetle, Palm Springs pocket mouse, and Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel during the appropriate conditions and seasons. During these surveys, other HCP (Habitat Conservation Plan) species were searched for. In addition, a focused survey for Peninsular Bighorn sheep was also conducted for the property. The habitat involved at the proposed project site is in the middle of the Palm Canyon Wash area and is surrounded on three sides by existing development including an approved subdivision on the east side of Palm Canyon Wash improved with streets and infrastructure but only a few homes have been built thus far. There is no surface water on the site and the site is criss-crossed with dirt roads and trails. A concrete levee exists on the west bank of the Palm Canyon Wash for approximately 330 feet northerly of the Bogert Trail Bridge. No plant species listed as threatened or endangered by either the U.S. Fish or wildlife Service (USFWS) or the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)were detected on the property. The federally designated Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Critical Habitat boundary is a quarter of a mile east of the project site. The site lies outside Peninsular Range Bighorn Sheep critical habitat and lacks occupation or activity by this species. No mitigation measures for Bighorn sheep were deemed necessary in that report. According to the biological investigation, signs of two sensitive wildlife species were detected on the subject property. The Casey's June Beetle was found on site during the 2001 study. Potential impacts to habitat will be mitigated through a voluntary in-lieu fee of $600 per acre for impacts to 40.9 acres of creosote bush shrub habitat ($24,540.00) paid to the City or Habitat Conservation entity as designated by The City of Palm Springs. Desert tortoises were located near the project in 1990. During the 2001 study, presumed scat and burrow sign were located within the central and northern portions of the project area. Based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) guidelines, it is assumed that this species could potentially occur onsite until "clearance surveys" prove otherwise. Project impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project that are considered significant include: 1) Direct impacts to 1.66 acres of Desert wash shrub habitat; 2) Potential direct impact to Casey's June Beetle and associated habitat; and 3) Potential direct impact to Desert tortoise and associated habitat-dependent on "clearance survey" results. 18 lllql Mitigation measures: 1) Regarding Casey's June Beetle, an in-lieu fee of $600 per acre ($24,540.00) shall be paid to the City or Habitat Conservation entity as designated by The City of Palm Springs prior to issuance of grading permits. 2) Regarding the desert tortoise, a "clearance survey" shall be initiated prior to grading permits. If the results of that survey are positive, coordination with USFWS and CDFG and permitting subject to Section 10 (a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act will be required. If the results are negative, then no further permitting will be necessary. Other potential plant and animal life habitat impacts have been addressed in the referenced prior environmental reviews. 7. c) Vegetation was found to be characteristic of the Creosote Scrub - Burro Bush Dominated Community, which is pervasive throughout the southwestern United States. The loss of on site vegetation resulting from development is not considered significant due to this fact. 7. d) POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Impacts to 1.66 acres of Desert wash scrub habitat may occur. The 1.66 acres of California Department of Fish and Game jurisdictional lands include 0.40 acres of Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdictional waters. Impacts may require permitting by each of these agencies. Each agency will require individual negotiation with the project applicant to determine an appropriate design mitigation strategy. It is likely that the agencies will require a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio for impacts to respective jurisdictional areas. Mitigation measures: 1) Prior to grading, permits will be acquired from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Quality Control Board and California Department of Fish and Game. These agencies will establish any appropriate mitigation strategies through the permitting process. 7. f) This EA was transmitted to California Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 8, ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Would the proposal create: Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with adopted energy X conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X c) Result in the loss of availability of a known X mineral resource that would be of a future 19 value to the region and the residents of the State? 8. a) through c) NO IMPACT. The project is not large enough in size or scope to affect energy or known mineral resources. 9• HAZARDS Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Be a risk of accidental explosion or release X substances(including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,chemicals, or radiation?) b) Create possible interference with an X emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) Create any health hazard or potential health X hazard? d) Create exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increase the risk of fire hazard in areas X with flammable brush, grass or trees? 9. a) through e) NO IMPACT. There are no aspects of the proposed project that would involve explosives, pesticides, radiation, chemicals, or other hazardous materials. No hazardous materials are known to exist on the property (above or below ground level.) The proposed project will not create any possible interference with an emergency response plan, and will not create any health hazard. Landscaped areas of the project will serve to decrease risk of fire hazard. Therefore, this project will not result in a risk, nor create any health hazards, nor expose people to potential health hazards. 10. NOISE Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Would the proposal result in: Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Increases in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise X levels? 20 7*4 Y3 c) Will the project be compatible with the noise Yes No xN/A compatibility planning criteria according to Table 6-F of the Palm Springs Municipal Airport F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility study? 10. a) and b) NO IMPACT. Other than during construction, the proposed project is not expected to produce noise levels greater than noise levels stated within Chapter 11.74 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. Construction activities will be limited to the hours and noise levels specified in the Palm Springs Municipal Code. The project will generate no significant noise impact. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Would the proposal have an effect upon or result Significant Significant Significant in a need for new or altered government services Impact Unless Impact in an of the following areas: Mitigation Y 9 Incorporated a) Fire protection? X Distance to nearest fire station 2.5 miles. b) Police protection? X c) 'Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including X roads? e) Other governmental services? X 11. a) POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The site is located approximately 2.5 miles away from the nearest fire station and is on the outside of a 5 minute response time. The Specific Plan-1A area will require a new fire station to satisfy the five (5) minute response time standard of the City of Palm Springs Fire Department. The Fire Protection Master Plan calls for automatic sprinkler systems for all development beyond this response area. Mitigation measure: 1) Automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be required in all homes outside of the 5 minute response time until a new fire station is constructed for the Specific Plan-IA area; 2) Developer shall contribute on a fair-share basis to the cost of developing a new fire station based on a formula that has been adopted by the City. 11. b) LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. One (1) new police officer may be required Upon Specific Plan buildout. This plan represents approximately 7% of the Specific Plan buildout. This is not considered a significant impact. 11. c), d), e) NO IMPACT. The number of children associated with ninety single-family residences will not significantly impact local schools. Dedicated construction permit fees will mitigate any impact to schools. There are no impacts related to road maintenance due to the fact that the public roads to be used by the project already exist, and will need to be maintained with or without 21 the project. In the judgment of the Director of Planning and Building no additional governmental services will be affected, hence no impact. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Would the proposal result in a need for new Significant Significant Significant systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to Impact Unless Impact PP Mitigation the following utilities: Incorporated a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X g) Local or regional water supplies? X 12. a) through g) NO IMPACT. According to review by relevant agencies and departments, utility service can be made available to the project. Extension of utilities to the subject property will not constitute a significant effect on the environment. Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant 13. AESTHETICS Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Would the proposal: Incorporated a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic X effect? c) Create light or glare? X 13. a) through c) NO IMPACT. The proposed project will have no significant impact on any scenic vistas or highways. Appropriate project review will guarantee aesthetic issues are effectively addressed per the adopted design standards of the City of Palm Springs. Lighting glare will be shielded per The Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 9306.4. There will be no negative aesthetic effects related to from the project. One area where concern has been previously expressed is in the design of the levee on the west bank of the Palm Canyon Wash. In keeping 22 744 9r' with the Settlement Agreement with the Sierra Club, the levee is to incorporate a rock face design including the ability to incorporate native vegetation in the crevices between the large rocks. The project proposes such a design that is subject to review and approval by both the RCFCWCD and the City of Palm Springs. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical X change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred X uses within the potential impact area? 14. a), b), c), d), and e) LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. An archaeological study of the property, performed by Cultural Systems Research, Inc, for the Environmental Impact Report for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa, identified no resources of historical or archaeological significance. The study did indicate the possibility that previously unknown materials could be unearthed by grading and construction activities. The applicant and contractor shall halt grading or any other construction activity and contact the City if potentially significant remains or artifacts are found. During rough grading of the site, archeological monitoring shall be provided. Mitigation measures: 1) During rough grading.of the,site, archeological monitoring shall be provided. 2) Grading or any other construction activity shall halt in the area where artifacts are uncovered and the City shall be notified if potentially significant remains or artifacts are found. 15. RECREATION Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact - Mitigation Incorporated a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or X regional parks or other recreational facilities? 23 074 Op b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X 15. a)and b) NO IMPACT. The South Palm Canyon area offers horse back riding, golfing and hiking. There are sufficient recreational amenities in the Palm Springs area to address the needs of this development. There will be no impact on recreational facilities. The primary trail linkage affecting the subject property is equestrian usage. The vast majority of riders use the Palm Canyon Wash bottom as a trail from the Smoke Tree Stables located at Murray Canyon Drive and Toledo Road. The wash itself is frequently the destination, particularly of novice riders. More experienced riders will use the wash to access further destinations such as the Indian Canyons. Recently, the RCFCWCD made some improvements in the form of a drop-structure underneath the Bogert Trail Bridge. In order to accommodate the equestrian users, a ramp was also constructed to facilitate passage around the new structure. The approved Specific Plan depicts the wash trail as part of an overall loop system: No trails were shown crossing the property. 16. PUBLIC CONTROVERSY Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Is the proposed .project or action X environmentally controversial in nature or can it reasonably be expected to become controversial upon disclosure to the public? 16. a) LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The project is not considered environmentally controversial in nature, yet, it may become contentious upon disclosure to the public from a land use and biological standpoint. The Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan designated use of this property as single family residential and golf. In addition, concerns regarding biological resources may be raised. The Sierra Club and homeowners filed a previous lawsuit on the original SP-1 approved in 1991. A subsequent amendment to SP-1 led to a settlement agreement. This project is consistent with the amended SP-1 (and subsequently, with the settlement agreement mentioned above.) Additionally, there may be concerns raised regarding the Desert Tortoise, Casey's June Beetle and the Desert wash scrub habitat. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact SIGNIFICANCE Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or 24 ?4V7 animal, or eliminate important examples of X the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are X Individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings? 17. a) NO IMPACT. This conclusion is based upon a review of responses to questions in this Initial Study. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant effect on the environment. 17. b) NO IMPACT. This conclusion is based upon a review of responses to questions in this Initial Study. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant effect on the environment. 17. c) NO IMPACT. The environmental analysis for Tract 30046 has incorporated by reference the past assessments done in conjunction with the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan project. The Canyon Park Resort & Spa Certified Final EIR for Specific Plan #1 (State Clearinghouse#91012026) and the Palm Springs General Plan Update Certified Final EIR(State Clearinghouse #91082048) both contain analysis of cumulative impacts of related projects, The Canyon Park Resort & Spa Final EIR discusses cumulative impacts on Public Utilities, Public Services, Traffic Air Quality, Biology, Noise, Groundwater, and Groundwater Quality. These impacts result in incremental adverse impacts of cumulative projects analyzed. The General Plan Update Final EIR provides a broader cumulative impact analysis and covers Land Use, Geotechnic, Biology, Cultural, Hydrology, Water Quality/Availability, Aesthetics, Energy Resources, Risk of Upset, Demographics, Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Law Enforcement, Fire, Parks and Recreation, Schools, Health Facilities, Library Facilities, Public Transportation, Water Supply, Wastewater Generation and Disposal, Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telephone and Cable. 25 �� AP ifk The above mentioned cumulative impact analysis document the cumulative impacts for the Specific Plan #1 which are similar to Specific Plan #1A. The General Plan EIR evaluates the land uses on the property, which are consistent in quantity with the land uses proposed under Specific Plan #1A. The proposed project has no greater impacts than the land uses approved in the General Plan EIR or the Final EIR for Specific Plan #1 cumulative analysis. Therefore, the project has no more significant cumulative impacts than two approved projects on the property and no new significant cumulative impacts have been identified. 17. d) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?. No. This conclusion is based upon a review of responses to questions contained in this Initial Study. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant effect on the environment. 18. LISTED BELOW THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY; 1. Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning and Zoning, City of Palm Springs 2. David Barakian, Public Works Director 3. Marcus Fuller, Senior Civil Engineer 4. Marna Van Horn, Engineering Associate 5. Jing Yeo, Assistant Planner 6. Carl Thibeault, Fire Marshall 7. Marvin Roos, AICP, Mainiero, Smith &Associates 8. Michelle Witherspoon, Planner, Mainiero, Smith & Associates 9. Tony Bomkamp, Glenn Lukos Associates 10. Brock Ortega, Dudek and Associates 11.Alan Swanson, Tettemer and Associates '74 Yf 19. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project is consistent with the Program EIR on: Date: Douglas VEvans Director of Planning & Building PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 980 EAST TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262-0119 (760) 416-6000 FAX (760) 416-6015 'WILLIAM E. DIEDRICH, Ph,D., Superintendent of Schools BOARD OF EDUCATION:DONALD T.AIKENS, President—MICHAEL McCABE,Clerk ANDREW GREEN,Member—MEREDY SHOENBERGER,Member—SHARI STEWART, Member September 12, 2002 RECEIVED Jing Yeo SEP 1 b 2002 Associate Planner CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING DIVISION P. O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 RE: Tentative Tract Map No. 30046 Dear Jing: The schools that would serve this subdivision are: Enrollment Capacity Cahuilla Elementary School 623 706 Raymond Cree Middle School 1151 1329 Palm Springs High School 1821 1875 Utilization at all elementary schools, almost equals capacity. Although the utilization and capacity numbers indicate that there is available utilization, there may be no capacity for a particular grade level. This year, the district has closed specific grade levels (i.e., K, 1 and 2 grades) at many elementary schools. New incoming students may be bussed to alternative schools with available space. The developer fee for residential units is $2.14 per square foot; commercial/industrial is $.034 per square foot. New developments will adversely impact the school district in the K-5 grade levels, at least. Cinel Willia J. Sc m Director, Facilities Planning & Development CALIE��� y TRIBAL PLANNING , BUILDING & ENGINEERING ag► OFCNFIUII�p��� RECEIVED October 3, 2002 LfOCT - 8 2002 Doug Evans, Director of Planning & Zoning City of Palm Springs I LAN HNG DIVISION 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way' P- Palm Springs, California 92262 Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 30046 Dear Mr. Evans, The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Planning, Building, and Engineering Department is in receipt of your Initial Study for the above referenced project. The Department has reviewed the Tentative Tract Map No. 30046 and recommends the following condition: "During grading operations of the site a Native American Cultural Resource Monitor be present during all phases of grading." If you have any questions please feel free to call me at (760) 325-3400 ext. #207. Michael J. Atencio Associate Planner AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS mja C: G:\Documents and Settings\matendo\Desktop\PBE Letter.doc 650 C. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY • PALM SPRINGS, CA 92269 (760) 325-3400 FAH: (760) 325-6952 Ronald E.Starrs Desert Water Agency President 1200 Gene Autry Trail South William"Bill"Byrne PO.Box 1710 Vice ent FGdIa, oyd,j DESERT WATER F Gillar Boyd,Jc Palm Springs, CA 92263-1710 Secretary/Treasurer •'^ Telephone 760 323-4971 F,Thomas Kieley,III Fax 760 325-6503 Pamoa G,Oygar w dwa org Dan M Ainsworth RECENED General Manager Best.Best&Krieger General Counsel QC I rt r�L `�002 Krieger&Stewart L Consulting Engineers ���p,NN�NG DN1SION October 16, 2002 City of Palm Springs P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Attn: Jing Yeo Dear Jing: We are in receipt of your environmental assessment for Case 5.088 1-PD-269 Tentative Tract Map 30046. With the exception of the following, this Agency has no additional comments and/or concerns relative to this study: 1. Item (4), page 11 - Impacts to Groundwater Quality? Mitigation measures addressed on page 14, section 4 c), d), f), g), and j) appears to be in direct conflict with the statement provided on page 11, Item (h). The potentially significant impact of this project on groundwater quality and any mitigation measures that are to be incorporated, need to be reevaluated and addressed accordingly. 2. Item (J), page 11 - Are there any on-site or proposed wells? The Desert Water Agency does not own, operate or maintain any active wells within the confines of this project, nor are there any current plans for any future facilities. Claims on the existence of on-site wells and/or proposed facilities need to be reevaluated and addressed accordingly. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact our office at (760) 323-4971. Sincerely, DESERT 4j'ATER AGENCY 56) Woody Adams Sr. Service Planner WA:ks �� STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Govemor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Eastern Sierra & Inland Deserts Region RECEIVED 407 West Line Street Bishop, CA 93514 (760) 872-1171 DEC - 3 2002 PLANNING DIVISION 27 November, 2002 Mr. Doug Evans Director of Planning and Zoning City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Dear Mr. Evans: As agreed at the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan meeting on October 29, 2002, the Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed our letter of October 10, 2002 regarding the Monte Serrano Project- TTM 30046 and Case No. 5.0881 - Pd 269. Your letter of November 13, 2002 also addresses the issues raised at that meeting. The Department understands that we do not have authority on Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Reservation lands held in trust for the tribe or tribal members. The document did not clearly state that the project is located on reservation lands. We could exercise jurisdiction over fee lands held in trust for non-tribal members but do not intend to do so in this situation. The Department agrees that this project is not in Critical nor Essential habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. Our statement that this project was a corridor for bighorn sheep was based on sightings of the same individual sheep on either side of the project, within a short period of time. There are no recorded instances of any individuals being found on the project site to the Department's knowledge. Our concern is focused on bighorn sheep wandering onto the project and being exposed to toxic vegetation, pets, and humans. Our concerns will be eliminated with the construction of an 8 foot fence adjacent to the wash. It is the Department's understanding that the current requirement is a 6 foot fence until such time as sheep are documented on the property. This is acceptable to the Department. We appreciate the City's willingness to incorporate.our comments into the final project design. 701'rl/ 1 • • Mr. Doug Evans November 27, 2002 Page 2 The Department looks forward to working with the City in the future. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the above number, or Ms. Kimberly Nicol, Staff Environmental Scientist, at (760) 775-6108. Sincerely, Alan Pickard Deputy Regional Manager Eastern Sierra — Inland Desert Region cc: Mr. Glenn Black Ms. Kimberly Nicol 71 f37r n _)T H E L A W O F F I C L S O F'��)__ WORDEN, WILLIAMS, RICHMOND, BRECHTEL & KILPATRICK A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION D. Dwight Worden W. Scott Williams 462 STEVENS AVENUE . SUITE 102 Of Counsel Tracy R. Richmond SOLANA BEACH . CALIFORNIA 92075 D.Wayne Brechtel [8581 755-6604 FAX [8581 755-5198 Terry Kilpatrick www.solanalaw.con, E-Mail dwbAsolanalaw.com Terry M. Gibbs Maliada R.Dickenson June 24, 2003 Via Hand Delivery Planning Commission City of Pahn Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 Re: Case 5.0576 SP-IA—General Plan Amendment and Revisions to Canyon South Specific Plan#IA re: Monte Sereno Dear Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commnission: I am writing on behalf of the Sierra Club to express opposition to the City's proposed General Plan Amendment as it relates to the Monte Sereno subdivision project. The Sierra Club previously filed detailed written objections to the City's approval of the Monte Sereno project in letters dated October 18, 2002 and October 9, 2002. Among other things, those letters explained why the City's approval of the Monte Sereno project would violate the California Environmental Quality Act as well as the terms of the Stipulated Judgment regarding the SP-1 planning area. Those objections are equally applicable to the City's consideration of the proposed General Plan Amendments because the Amendments are designed to penult the continued processing and eventual development of the Monte Sereno project. Accordingly, the Sierra Club asserts that the City's approval of the proposed General Plan Amendments would violate CEQA and the Stipulated Judgment, and it the hereby incorporates its objections set forth in its October 18, 2002 and October 9, 2002 letters. A copy of these letters are attached. Very truly yours, WORDEN, WILLIAMS, RICHMOND, BRECHTEL /&KILPATRICK, APPC-- D. WAYNE BRECHTEL Attorneys for Sierra Club cc: Kenneth B. Bley 4 0"2A f To K:\Clients\SIECLW\Altmas\Lettel sTlaiiComm002reMonteSereno.doc <y f T HE LAW O F F I C E S O F WORDEN, WILLIAMS, RICHMOND, BRECHTEL &KILPATRICK A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION D. Dwight Worden W. Scott VIlliarns 462 STEVENS AVENUE . SUITE 102 Of Counsel Trecv R. Richmond SOLANA BEACH . CALIFORNIA 92075 D. Wayne Brechtel [8587 755-6604 FAX 18581 765-6198 Terry Kilpatrick www.sola nalaw.com Terry M. Gibbs VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNIGHT MAIL City Council City of Palm Springs Office of the City Clerk 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 Re: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MONTE SORENO PROJECT/Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Case 5 0331-PD-269, TTM 30046, Monte Sereno, Palm Canyon LLC Dear City Council: I am writing on behalf of the Sierra Club to formally appeal the Planning Commission actions related to the above referenced project taken on October 9, 2002. A check in the amount of$325 is enclosed. Although Staff has informed me that the Planning Commission actions were only advisory, there is some evidence in the City Code that the decision may be final in some respects, unless appealed. Accordingly, I am appealing all of the actions. However, if the City determines that an appeal is not warranted, then please refund the appeal fee. The Sierra Club is appealing the Planning Commission actions for the reasons set forth in its letter submitted to the Planing Commission as part of the Record of Proceedings and which is incorporated herein by this reference. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Preliminary Development Plan, Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to adequately address the significant impacts to the Casey's June Beetle and the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep The Sierra Club is also concerned that the approval does not comply with the Sierra Club's Stipulated Judgment with Canyon Development, the City of Palm Springs and its Redevelopment Agency. The Sierra Club urges that the City Council set aside all actions taken by the Planning Commission to avoid violations of State environmental laws and'prevent irreparable harm to biological resources, and then require preparation of an adequate Environmental Impact Report to fully disclose the impacts of the project. �i9-s7 K'\CLentslslECLldlCam on ItulavelopmentVzuerrs\Ciry Counvd whdduc Y City Council City of Palm Springs October 18, 2002 Page 2 Please let me know when the hearing on this appeal will be held. I am available to answer any questions or provide additional information, if necessary. Very truly yours, WORDEN, WILLIAMS, RICHINIOND, BRECHTEL & KILPATRICK,, APC D. WAYNE BRECHTEL DWB/amh cc: client K\Clien\SiECLMCanyon Redevelopment\Le¢ea\Cuy Councd.wpd doc Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter \f Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Iahquitz Group • Los Serranos Group San Bernardino Mtns. Group • Mojave Group October 2002 Planning Commission City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Case 5.0881-PD-269, TTM 30046, Specific Plan Amendment, Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Palm Canyon LLC Dear Chairman and Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Sierra Club regarding the Planned Development District, Tentative Tract Map and Specific Plan Amendment for the Palm Canyon LLC Monte Sereno Subdivision Project ("Project") referenced above, The Project is being processed as part of the Canyon Resort& Spa Specific Plan as ("SP-I") The Sierra Club urges denial of the Project at this time. As proposed, the Project would result in significant environmental impacts that require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR"), rather than the Mitigated Negative Declaration you are being asked to adopt. The Project would also violate the terms and conditions of a Stipulated Judgment that governs how development within the SP-1 planning area can proceed. Background SP-1 has a complex history that is important to an understanding of the comments submitted by the Sierra Club. The SP-1 was originally approved by the City of Palm Springs in 1991. At that time, the principal Project proponent was Canyon Development, a single, private development entity. The Sierra Club challenged the original approval, and in August 1993, the litigation was settled byway of a Stipulated Judgment approved by the Court, The Stipulated Judgment provided a right to proceed under SP-1 in accordance with certain terms and conditions, including, among others, very specific flood control measures,time and method restrictions on Specifc Pl activities and an obligation to purchase open space at the west end of the Specil.'tc Plan area if feasible. SP-1 was amended in January . . To explore. enlov and preseme th.: nation's forests. aatea. wildlife, and ZO -d H8S =90 C0-92:—unr' Planning Commission City of'Palm Springs 10/9/02 Page 2 1994 to amend and clarify land uses within the Plan Area. The amendment did-not alter the obligations imposed by the Stipulated Judgment. Since the 1994 Stipulated Judgment, various new developers, including Palm Canyon LLC and the Aqua Caliente Development Authority have obtained development rights previously held by Canyon Development, the original party to the Sierra Club suit it is not clear at this point whether these new successors consider themselves bound by the Stipulated Judgment. The Project Will Result In Significant Unmitigated Environmental Impacts To Sensitive And Endangered Species The Impact Analysis and Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project are inadequate. The Project's direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to biological resources and other resources have not been adequately identified nor have they been mitigated to a level of insignificance. New information has arisen since the prior environmental review processes that mandates findings of significance and the preparation of a new EIR ("SEIR"). In particular, as proposed, the project has the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of wildlife species, cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threatens to eliminate an animal community, and reduce the number or restrict the range of rare and endangered animals. See CEQA Guidelines § 15065 These issues are discussed in more detail below. Casey's June Beetle The Project site is home to the Casey's June Beetle (CJB), a de facto endangered species endemic to a limited portion of the Palm Canyon drainage. From all that is known about its life history and distribution, this species meets all the criteria for listing under the Endangered Species Act. It is listed as a "Special Animal" by California Department of Fish & Game, and originally it was to be included in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Plan Impacts to CIB would be significant under CEQA, and were not analyzed in environmental review for SP-1 or its amendment. Studies in recent years have shown the range of CJB to be within about a mile radius of Smoke Tree Ranch. (7/15/02 AMEC Biological Review for DWA facilities proposed on Smoke Tree Ranch, enclosed, and MSHCP habitat maps, herein incorporated by reference, and personal communication with Jim Cornett and members of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the MSHCP). Smoke Tree Ranch's open lands were identified as a preserve for this species in earlier iterations of the CV MSHCP But CJB and this potential preserve had been dropped from the current draft because the landowner was 740 £O , d H6S =90 £O-SZ-unr .__�.. •�.._......._..v`....----.-- 5AIW n.C. cnnv/C>/Fl -D.,Te.-- ` Planning Commission City of Palm Springs l 0/9/02 Page 3 unwilling to sell its lands (Bill Havert, Director Coachella Valley hltns Conservancy and preparer of the MSHCP). There is no evidence of protective restrictions or covenants protecting the lands that were formerly proposed for preserve, and they are currently zoned for commercial and residential uses. The highway frontage portion of the formerly proposed reserve is being actively marketed at this time, and in fact the owners recently asked for, and the City granted, expanded commercial uses on the property. Although it is conjectured that this species may occur elsewhere, CJB have never been found outside the Palm Canyon area. According to the wildlife agencies and the AMEC report,the only places in the Valley where there may be additional potential extant habitat for CJB would be in Dead Indian Canyon and Deep Canyon in Palm Desert However, Dead Indian Canyon has been recently surveyed with the correct protocol and CJB have not been found (personal communication with Cameron Barrows, head of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the MSHCP. Likewise, the BLM Visitor Center in Dead Indian Canyon Wash has also recently been surveyed and yielded no CJB (Mark Fisher, Staff Biologist, Deep Canyon Desert Research Center). Nor have CJB been found at the Bighorn Institute, also in Dead Indian Canyon Wash (Jim de Forge, Director, Bighorn Institute). And as regards Deep Canyon, no CJB have been found there in spite of extensive invertebrate collecting at the LTC Deep Canyon Desert Research Center ("DRDRC"), which occupies all of undeveloped Deep Canyon (Alan Muth, Director, DCDRC). Nor have CJB been found in the Center's pool (Alan Muth), and pools are an attractant and a known trap for CBJ (Alan Muth, Cameron Barrows, Jim Cornett and several UC Riverside entomologists) The November 2001 biological report for the project confirms that CJB occur onsite The total known habitat (worldwide) for this species is estimated to be approximately 296 acres, of which the project represents approximately 17%, or 50.49 acres. This species has been shown to exist only in Palm Canyon and only where cheesebush-dominated desert creosote scrub habitat occurs The vast majority of this habitat onsite is intact, but all of this CJB habitat would be destroyed by the proposed project. This is clearly a significant impact under CEQA. The Mitigated Negative Declaration asserts that the payment of"an in-lieu fee of.$600 per acre to the City or the Habitat Conservation entity as designated by the City of Palm - Springs" will render impacts to CFB to a level of insignificance. In the current administrative draft MSHCP, there is no CJB preserve to which funds may be directed for acquisition or mitigation, nor has there been any mitigation fee set (personal communication with Jim Sullivan, Director of Environmental Resources for CVAG, the lead agency for the MSHCP) The City, as a signatory to the MSHCP MOU, received a copy of the current administrative draft as well as earlier drafts of the MSHHP, herein incorporated by reference. Furthermore, there is no evidence that CJB have ever been found in the Indian Canyons Tribal Park, although the Tribe has commissioned surveys. 70?6/ no d V69 : 90 s0-se-unc r. aftc� .mood .nnininwnru`c�n�HrllTAn`ngllHnMr- :WH/[1'H ROO� ^Z/9 :po n2a- Planning Commissio n City of Palm Springs 10/9/02 Page 5 Recovery Plan designated property within the east and west ends of SP-1 as essential habitat for the Peninsular bighorn, In February 2001, critical habit for the Peninsular bighorn sheep was designed by the US Fish& Wildlife Service. Again, the east and west ends of SP-1 were designated as critical habitat for the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep This new and substantial information gives rise to potential impacts to an endangered species not known or considered when the original environmental assessments for the SP-1 and its amendment were completed.2 The biological report and environmental documentation for the project fails to acknowledge that the project lies in an existing corridor connecting the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains. Per multiple discussions in the last three years involving Sierra Club (Joan Taylor), USFWS (Pete Sorenson, Scott McCarthy and Guy Wagner), CDFG (Kevin Brennan), City of Palm Springs (Doug Evans), ACBCI (Tom Davis), it has been acknowledged that currently Peninsular bighorn are crossing between the San Jacinto Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains in the SP-1 area" The most recent evidence of this use was early last month, September, 2002 as evidenced by fresh droppings on Garstin Trail (photos enclosed). Arguably, this Peninsular bighorn corridor connection does not have ideal conditions for a bighorn corridor, because of two-lane Palm Canyon Drive and the existing golf course, as well as the approved Specific Plan. However, ideal or not, this corridor is still physically open and is part of the only known connection between these major mountain ranges and their respective ewe groups. Without connectivity, there will be no gene flow between these ewe groups The Recovery Plan for Peninsular bighorn cites maintenance of genetic variation (gene flow between ewe groups) as a primary goal of the recovery. Ram movement between ewe groups is cited as the primary means of gene flow. Loss of genetic variation makes small populations, such as those in the Peninsular Ranges bighorn, especially susceptible to extinction. (October, 2000, Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California, herein incorporated by reference). Currently, bighorn do have a pattern of successfully using this corridor to maintain genetic connectivity between these portions of the range(CDFG, USFWS, Bighorn Institute). This project, along with other projects in the foreseeable future, promise to completely block this connection by walled developments, increased traffic, roadway improvements and the like. Until and unless an adequately sized and feasible alternate corridor for Peninsular bighorn is secured for the future, impacts to the existing corridor Sierra Club's earlier litigation did address, to some degree,potential impacts to the Peninsular bighorn sheep. However,the information discussed in this letter is of a new and different nature not known or anticipated at the time of that litigation. Further, it is not clear"that the current developers consider themselves bound by the earlier Stipulated Judgment. and as such, the Sierra Club raises issues related to the Peninsular bighorn sheep both in the context as new information not coveted by the Stipulated Judgment and in the contest of a project applicant which does not considered itself bound be the Stipulated Judgment. 90 ' d Vi0 = L0 CO-90-urup (+nininiu"ru•cniHr��rnn`nian Hr `WVOL -6 —in,i»iq 'pa n"Fe^ab y Planning Commission City of Palm Springs 10/9/02 Page 4 This species is not proposed to be`covered"under the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan (Jim Sullivan) either. The bottom line is that the mere imposition of a fee with no showing that it will actually prevent a reduction in range or loss of CJB does not mitigate the significant impact caused by this project and does not satisfy CEQA Information available to date indicates that the ranee for the CJB is very limited, and there is no evidence to support a finding that the proposed mitigation fee alters that reality. If the Project is allowed to proceed forward,the result will be a reduction in range and numbers of CJB. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15065, a project must be found to have a significant impact if it "has the potential to . . . reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species . . .." (emphasis added.) This mandatory finding of significance also mandates that use of a mitigated negative declaration for the Monte Sereno Project is inappropriate. ,4n EIR must be prepared.' ql.h Peninsular Ranges bighorn sheep Potential impacts to the Peninsular bighorn sheep must be addressed in an SE1R The Initial Study asserts that the project lies ''/d mile outside designated critical habitat for Peninsular bighorn. Enclosed is a snap of critical habitat in the project area It appears that critical habitat extends into and perhaps across Palm Canyon Wash in the immediate area, and that the project may., in fact, extend into critical habitat This needs to be ascertained. In view of the fact that Peninsular bighorn accessed Palm Canyon immediately adjacent to the project recently (personal observation, photos of bighorn ewes that came down Garstin Trail ridge to Palm Canyon Wash 4/01), plus the fact that the City is on notice that there is a vital Peninsular bighorn corridor in which this project occurs (see below), plus the fact that the Monte Sereno project site is very likely in critical habitat, impacts to this endangered species need to be addressed. Instead, the Initial Study and biological report state that the site lacks activity by this species and that no mitigation is necessary. In 1996, the SP-1 area was identified as part of a corridor for the endangered Peninsular bighorn rams that have traveled between the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountains. This information on the connectivity between bighorn in the two mountain ranges was obtained by way of data points collected from collared sheep, and was not available until 1995 or 1996 (Jim de Forge, Director, Bighorn Institute). In 1998, the Peninsular bighorn were listed as an endangered species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. In November 2000, a final Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep was approved. The t Potential impacts to the CJB were not pan of the original Sierra Club litigation or the resulting Stipulated Judgmen. nor Nxere they somethmg that could have been litigated at the time. The threat to this unique and endangered species did not come to light until after the litigation had been resolved. ?AUS SO ' d HOO = LO £o-se—unr Planning Commission City of Palm Springs 10/9/02 Page 6 have the potential to restrict the range of this endangered species As discussed above, the Trustee Agencies have advised the City that SPA, as currently proposed, intrudes too far west into Arenas Canyon alluvial fan to provide an adequate corridor for Peninsular bighorn. This corridor use was not known in the early 1990s nor was it analyzed in the review for SP-1 and its amendment. Nor has it been addressed in the current Impact Analysis and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Even if one were to argue that the impacts of this individual housing project to this Peninsular bighorn corridor were limited, clearly the impacts are considerable when considered in content of the effects of past, current and probable future projects. This impact to a listed species warrants the preparation of an SEIR. Finally, approval of this part of SPA without addressing both the impacts of the Monte Sereno project itself as well as the provision of an adequate Peninsular bighorn corridor in the western part of the project does conflict with established plans and policies of Trustee Agencies with jurisdiction over the project (see below at Land Use Conflicts) Adequacv and Accuracy of Project Description Sierra Club is concerned that the entire Project, i.e. development pursuant to SP-I, has been divided and piecemealed in a manner that is avoiding assessment oFthe Project's true impacts. Of particular concern, is the failure to consider all projects proposed by Palm Canyon LLC, including the anticipated subdivision at the western end of the SP-I area (Alturas), the hotel and golf course project to be developed by the Aqua Caliente Development Authority, and all other components of SP-1 when considering the Project's overall environmental impacts. The result is an analysis that minimizes the indirect and cumulative impacts the Project. The proposed Project is part of a larger development scheme that has interrelated components, including flood control measures, mitigation requirements and common ownership. Yet the current applicant, Palm Canyon LLC is seeking approval of one aspect of the project and is limiting all discussion of potential impacts to that element alone. The potential impacts and mitigation for all projects should be considered in one document as envisioned by the orieinal and amended Specific Plan and the Stipulated Judgment. This is appropriate because the impacts and benefits of all SP-1 projects are part of a common, interrelated development scheme. Without consideration of the projects together, it is anticipated that the applicant will assert that it will be too burdensome to require the Alturas project to mitigate for impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep. In other words, mitigation that would have been deemed feasible for the larger project will be deemed too burdensome for the Alturas project alone. s*7A 4 Lo - d V£0 = /o CO-90-unc, Planning Commission City of Palm Springs 10/9/02 Page 7 Finally, the environmental and planning documents for the Monte Sereno Project conflict with respect to the number of units actually involved. The Notice of Completion references 87 residential units. The Negative Declaration refers to 89 residential units. The Project map refers to 90 residential lots. This issue should be clarified and confirmed prior to Project approval. Failure to Complv with the Stipulated Judgment Overall, the Sierra Club is concerned that the current division of project entitlements and the manner in which the SP-1 projects are being processed by the City is either intentionally or negligently subverting the intent and purpose of its Stipulated Judgment and environmental review requirements of CEQA. In 1993, Sierra Club and other plaintiffs entered into the Stipulated, Judgment with Canyon Development and the City of Palm Springs and its Redevelopment Agency("City"), It is Sierra Club's understanding that the City considers itself bound by the Stipulated Judgment, but that the City's position is that the Stipulated Judgment may not bind the current successors to Canyon Development The Sierra Club objects to any attempt by Palm Canyon LLC or any other successor to avoid the terms of the Stipulated Judgment. When approved by the Court in 1993, the Stipulated Judgment envisioned one overall development entity assuming responsibility for compliance with settlement terms This provided some reasonable expectation that the developer would have the financial means and capacity to carry out important settlement requirements, such as purchase of property at the western end of SP-1, liquidated damages provisions, etc. Currently, the property entitlements have been divided between at least two different entities. The Sierra Club is concerned that this may improperly cause portions of the project to be insulated from responsibilities imposed by the Stipulated Judgment. We are also concerned that this may artificially and improperly minimize the environmental impacts of projects authorized by the SP-1 Among other things, the Stipulated Judgment provided that the original project proponent Canvon, "use its best efforts to acquire property within the Western Restricted Area, provided it can acquire the propert�l for fair market value " Judgment, p 4. At the time the Stipulated Judgment was entered, Canyon Development was the developer of the land encompassing the hotel, golf course and Monte Sereno subdivision and other lands under SP-l. Property within the Western Restricted Area falls within the areas designated as essential and critical habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep. Accordingly, it is extremely important that the designated property be acquired and preserved as envisioned by the Stipulated Judgment. Currently, however, there is no indication that the Monte Sereno developer or Aqua Caliente Development Authority consider themselves bound the 07A4r eo ' d VVO:L0 co-SZ-unc O 2GL.J :�PQ# `tIIJ!' v..11W 'VT'I-IT ecnzl- 19 Planning Commission City of Palm Springs 10/9M2 Page 8 Judgment or obligated to participate; in the purchase of property within the Western Restricted Area Thus, the original intent and purpose of the Judgment is in jeopardy It is Sierra Club's understanding that the Monte Sereno developer has an option to purchase the property in question, The Monte Sereno development should not be approved until such time as all developers enjoying; the benefits of SP-1 have demonstrated compliance with the Sierra Club Judgment and a willingness to participate in the purchase and preservation of property within the western end of SP-1. The City's application of the Stipulated Judgment provisions appears to be inconsistent. On the one hand, the City has not required the Project applicant to participate in the purchase of habitat within the Western Restricted Area. The City has also failed to require that the applicant comply with the provisions in the Stipulated Judgment related to construction in or near Palm Canyon Wash and the requirement to provide temporary equestrian access. The portion of Palm Canyon Wash adjacent to the Project is a main thoroughfare for a major recreational amenity in the City, Smoke Tree Stables. Horseback riding is a major marketing tool for the tourism industry in Palm Springs. Smoke Tree Stables is the only large commercial stable in the City Tens of thousands of horseback riders a year pass through this part of the Wash(Rod Johnson and KC Johnson, owners Smoke Tree Stables). Palm Canyon Wash is the main equestrian access not only for the Indian Canyons, but also for trails in the Santa Rosa Mountains Horses are unique among domesticated animal, in that flight is their primary survival mechanism, and if there is massive disturbance in Palm Canyon Wash, especially during the tourist season, then there will be severe impacts to existing recreational opportunities Addressing this issue is required under CEQA as well as the Judgment. On the other hand, the City is requiring the applicant to pay its "fair-share contribution" towards offsite flood control, offsite roadway, and off-site traffic signals which are not required solely in order to develop this individual project, but are necessary to bring the balance of SP-1 to Tuition. As the Impact Analysis and Mitigated Negative Declaration assert in the case of traffic impacts, the proposed residential project will not create any traffic hazards, and, in fact, the reduced land use densities now contemplated along Bogert Trail in SP-1 may remove the need for formerly warranted new traffic signals. Nevertheless, for purposes of mitigating contemplated overall SPA impacts, the City consistently imposes a fair-share burden of mitigation costs on this individual project, Monte Serena The City must regc.ire the applicant to comply with all provisions of the Stipulated Judgment, not just those it deems important. It is unclear whether the materials proposed for the Palm Canyon flood control levee will conform with the Stipulated Judgment or not. At one point the Initial Study states that the flood control analysis recommends compacted fill with concrete erosion protection. At another it asserts that the levee is now proposed as rock-lined with natural plantings incorporated This needs to be clarified. 60 ' d v90 = G0 £o-se-Unr Planning Commission City of Palm Springs 10/9/02 Page 9 Sierra Club is currently reviewing detailed plans for levee work and reserves its right to ensure full compliance with the Stipulated Judgment. Land Use Conflicts The Initial Study asserts that this project has no impact on policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project This is not the case. This project individually, and the greater Canyon project of which this is a part, do conflict with the Recovery Plan for Peninsular bighorn (herein incorporated by reference), Designated Critical Habitat for Peninsular bighorn, and Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn as delineated in the Recovery Plan and MSHCP process. As stated above, this project is located at the foot of Garstin Trail ridge which has repeatedly been used in recent years by Peninsular bighorn This ridge is at the northernmostextension of the Santa Rosa Mountains directly opposite the San Jacinto Mountains (BLM Trails Map, enclosed). It is part of a corridor for bighorn moving between those ewe groups (USFWS, CDFG, Bighorn Institute). Development of Monte Sereno has the potential to impede this movement. This is a potentially significant impact to an endangered species which has not been acknowledged, much less mitigated. Moreover, at the build out of SP-1 (of which Monte Sereno is a part) as proposed with the proposed large hotel and housing, roadway improvements, and development extending 1/z mile up Arenas Canyon alluvial fan -- a viable corridor to bighorn movement between the San Jacintos and Santa Rosas would be entirely blocked (USFWS, CDFG). We acknowledge that, to address the issue of this now recognized Peninsular bighorn corridor, the USFWS and CDFG("Trustee Agencies"), the City, the Aqua Caliente, and the MSHCP Planners have discussed the potential for Peninsular bighorn to use an alternate corridor, since preservation of this part of the corridor is not promising. The alternate corridor that has been discussed would cross Arenas Canyon alluvial fan in a north-south direction in order to access the Indian Canyons Park and thereby provide bighorn access between the San Jacintos and the Santa Rosas. However, the Trustee Agencies have determined that development on Arenas Canyon fan must be adequately constrained in order to protect this potential corridor(as well as the Arenas Canyon habitat itself) As currently configured, SP-'1 intrudes into such a corridor and into critical habitat. The maps and supporting documentation for Critical and Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn are hereby incorporated by reference. The Initial Study for Monte Sereno refers to Palm Canyon LLC's development proposal for Arenas Canyon alluvial fan(the:"Alturas" project TTM 30047). The application for this project may not be complete, but it has been submitted to the City as part of SP-1, and would extend well into Critical and Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn It would not only adversely impact Critical Habitat, but also conflict with the Recovery Plan which mandates preservation of vital habitat and corridors ?X6 *7 01 - d 7L0 = 1-0 £O-SE-unp .'nnininwnru`. MWIT' I TM`N9OH� WV91 " r OEI-3/9 vpa 'iae Planning Commission City of Palm Springs 10/9/02 Page 10 It is interesting to note that the City regards the Monte Sereno portion of SP-I as sharing responsibility for the impacts of the entire SP-1 when it comes to paying for off-site flood control and off-site roadway and traffic signal improvements. It should be perfectly understandable,therefore, that Sierra Club regards this portion of SP-1 as sharing responsibility for the both onsite and oft-site impacts of the entire project when it comes to providing adequate habitat and corridors deemed necessary by the Trustee Agencies for survival and recovery 6f endangered Peninsular bighorn. The City has made it plain that the flood control structures required for the development of the western portion of SPA are financially infeasible for the developer of that portion of the project to bear (Doug Evans,Planning Director) Hence, individual portions of the project must pay their share of these off-site facilities, even if, as in the case of Monte Sereno, these facilities are not required to construct and serve the individual project Thus, it is clear that this development of this portion of SPA, which is obligated to fund a share of off-site costs for infrastructure, actually facilitates the development of the rest of SPA. Cumulative Impacts Clearly, project impacts to biological resources are cumulatively significant, as outlined above Not only is SP-1 with its various tracts moving forward, but also individual housing construction is proceeding forward Please compare photos taken 10/7/02 (enclosed) with photos submitted for the original specific plan. Other Inadequacies of Biological Report In addition to the deficiencies outlined above, the biological report prepared for the Monte Sereno Project has other deficiencies, including but not limited to the following. The report's biological resources map shows Palm Canyon Wash as "unvegetated." Except for the stretch between Bogert Trail Bridge and the drop structure (less than ';< mile), the wash is dry wash woodland with mature vegetation, a plant community that is severely depleted in the Coachella Valley The same map shows the area east of Palm Canyon Wash as "developed." There is no development east of the project site. There are roads and an approved subdivision for perhaps ''/a mile north of the bridge, but no development existing or contemplated for the balance of the project's eastern boundary (see photos). 7i4G$ it 'd veo : zo Eo-9Z-unr . . _�_ ._....,. .,,.,... ,.r. ^,..,r��Tn. �=nunnn�- •wii •�, ^nnv/^�/9 'par'ra- 61 Planning Commission City of Palm Springs L Q/910 2 Page 11 We urge the City to deny the project and order the preparation of an SEIR to address the above concerns Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. Very truly yours, Janarman Low Desert Issues 1806 S. Sunrise Way Palm Springs, CA 92264 Enclosures Photos of Peninsular bighorn on Garstin Trail ridge 4/10 Photos of site and area from the east 10/02 Photos of fresh bighorn sheep sign on Garstin Trail 9/02 Amec Biological Report 7/02 Land Designation map, 4/01 Indian Canyons Master Plan Critical Habitat Map For vicinity 007A &i dOi = LO EO-94Z-unp —• ,F., �..r.0 ..n.,.w�r� nnnrr-.�rnn°nian Nnnn�- 1wbe 4:6 £oaz/93/9 :Pan-paaau RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE ADDENDUM TO THE CANYON PARK RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#91012026) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS TO SPECIFIIC PLAN#IA, NOW KNOWN AS THE CANYON SOUTH SPECIFIC PLAN (Case No. 5.0576) AGENCY COMMENTS/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Response to Comments on the Addendum to the EIR for the Canyon Park Resort has been prepared in accordance with Sections 15088, 15089 and 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. The following agencies and interested parties have coimmented on the Draft EA. Please note that Section I contains agency comments and subsequent responses. Section II contains the full text of connnenting correspondence. SECTION 1: The following comments were received on the Addendum transmitted to various public agencies and interested parties. These comments concern aspects of the Addendum, including clarification of information, addition of information, and similar issues. Please note that the only comments received were all from the same law finn, addressing three separate parts of the Specific Plan. A. Worden, William, RicYnnond, Brechtel &Kilpatrick, Indian Canyons Resort Hotel, June 24, 2003 2 B. Worden, William, Richmond, Brechtel &Kilpatrick, Alturas Subdivision, June 25, 2003 2 C. Worden, William, Richmond, Brechtel &Kilpatrick, Monte Serene, June 24, 2003 5 SECTION II: All letters included in Section I, above, are provided in their original form, in the following order: Beginning on page 17 A. Worden, William, Richmond, Brechtel &Kilpatrick, Indian Canyons Resort Hotel, June 24, 2003 B. Worden, William, Richmond, Brechtel &Kilpatrick, Alturas Subdivision, June 25, 2003 C. Worden, William, Richmond, Brechtel & Kilpatrick, Monte Serene, June 24, 2003 Jo470 TN/City of Palm Springs Response to Comments/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendmn A. Worden, William,Richmond, Brechtel & Kilpatrick, Indian Canyons Resort Hotel, June 24, 2003 A-1. Comment: As currently drafted, the General Plan designates the lands west of South Palm Canyon Drive as the site for the proposed Indian Canyons Resort Hotel. However, if the City approves the proposed General Plan Amendment, the hotel site will be moved to the southeast corner of Murray Canyon Drive and South Palm Canyon Drive. The Sierra Club fully supports this proposal because it moves the hotel out of a sensitive resource area to an area suitable for such development. The Sierra Club fully supports this proposal because it moves the hotel out of a sensitive resource area to an area suitable for such development. The Sierra Club believes that this change, standing alone, is a minor change to the development. The Sierra Club believes that this change, standing alone, is a minor change to the City's General Plan, that there is no possibility of additional environmental impacts that have not already been analyzed, and that no additional environmental review is therefore required. Response: Comment noted. B. Worden, William, Richmond,Brechtel & Kilpatrick, Alturas Subdivision, June 25, 2003 B-1. Comment: In October 2000 and February 2001, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service identified a substantial portion of the proposed development area west of South Palm Canyon Drive as essential and critical habitat for the survival and recovery of the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS')...Any development in this area would be inconsistent with the critical habitat designation and Recovery Plan and therefore poses a threat tot he continued survival of PBS The Sierra Club therefore strongly opposes the City's attempt to authorize development west of South Palm Canyon Drive without first undertaking adequate environmental review. Response: Comment noted. Pages 56 through 60 of the EIR Addendum specifically address the authority of both the Recovery Plan for the PBS, and the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan, which also governs in this area. In addition, the commentor is aware that at its meeting of June 25, the Planning Commission added the following mitigation measure and condition of approval to the project, which he agreed would provide mitigation for the potential impacts to PBS: "It is hereby found that the portion of the property described as the area westerly of South Palm Canyon Drive within the designated critical habitat area (herein the "Study Area") shall remain undeveloped until additional enviromnental analysis can be performed, as to potential Page 2of2 ?46 "?/ TN/City of Palm Springs Response to Comments/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendum impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (PBS). Although extensive environmental review has been performed for the project, the Study Area is especially sensitive and additional review is warranted. This additional environmental review, which shall be perfonned before any development is approved within the Study Area, shall address, at minimum, the proposed development's potential impact on the PBS Recovery Plan and potential impacts on designated critical habitat for PBS." B-2. Comment: The City must prepare a subsequent environmental impact report addressing new information and changed circumstances concerning those areas identified as critical and essential to the survival of PBS. At a minimum, this means that the City must address how any development in the project area located west of South Palm Canyon Drive will adversely affect PBS in that such development is inconsistent with the PBS recovery plan and critical habitat designation. The City's use of an Addendum to analyze the potential impacts of proposed development in areas that have been identified as critical and essential habitat for an endangered species violates the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA'). An addendum may only be used where neither of the following conditions exist: 1) Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 2) New information ofsubstantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise ofreasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; or (B)Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. In this case, all of the above factors exist and the preparation of a subsequent EIR is therefore required. For example, in October 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated much of the area west of South Palm Canyon Drive as essential habitat for the PBS. Subsequently, the same area was designated as critical habitat. This represents a substantial change with respect to the circumstances tinder which development west of South Palm Canyon Drive is being undertaken, as well as new information that was not known or could not have been known with reasonable diligence when the project was last subject to environmental review. Indeed, no mention is made in the original 1991 EIR or the 1994 Environmental Assessment about the importance of the area as critical Page 3 of 3 7ol �X TN/City of Pahn Springs Response to Continents/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendum and essential habitat for PBS. Instead, the assumption in the prior environmental documents was that the area was not important habitat and that any impacts to PBS could be eliminated if the project were simply surrounded by a six-foot block wall or fence. In other words, the focus in the prior environmental documents was on eliminating impacts of the project on PBS outside of the project area, not on mitigating on-site impacts cased by the loss of critical and essential habitat. The realization that the project site contains critical and essential habitat is a significant change in circumstances and new information that must be analysed in a subsequent EIR. This is so because under CEQA if a project has the potential to restrict the range of an endangered species, the City must consider the effect as significant. (CEQA Guidelines 15065). In this case, because the City never analyzed or considered the impact of the loss of critical and essential habitat in the prior environmental documents, this signifcant effect must now be analyzed before the City considers whether or not to approve the General Plan amendments for the property located within the PBS critical and essential habitat area. Response: As stated at length on page 6 of the EIR Addendum, the potential impacts associated with PBS were considered as though the species were listed as endangered in the original Final EIR, as required by CEQA. The conditions present at the time of the original environmental reviews have been further analyzed in this EIR Addendum. The potential impacts associated with PBS are further discussed in the Addendum, including requirements for compliance with both federal and tribal documents (the PBS Recovery Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan, respectively). Further, the Specific Plan Amendment proposed and reviewed as part of this application does not include a specific project on any portion of those lands located west of South Palm Canyon Drive. Additional environmental review, including compliance with both the Recovery Plan and the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan, is envisioned in the EIR Addendum. Finally, the addition of the mitigation measure/condition of approval replicated in Cornment B-1, above, assures that further environmental review will be performed when a specific project is proposed for that portion of the plan area. B-3. Comment: Another factor that requires the City to prepare a Subsequent EIR is the fact that the population of PBS has declined precipitoatsly since the original environmental documents were prepared in 1991 and 1994. For example, there were approximately 400-500 PBS in the United States in 1991 and 1994. (Recover Plan at p. 30)However, by 1998, it was estimated that this number dropped to 334 animals, or perhaps to as few as 262 animals—reflecting roughly an 18%to 48%decline of this endangered animal. This is a substantial change in circumstances and new information that the City must analyze in an updated environmental document. Page 4 of 4 3 TN/City of Palm Springs Response to Comments/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendum Response: The EIR Addendum includes data and information relating to the listing of the species as endangered, and the requirements of law regarding impacts, included in the Recovery Plan. Any project proposed in the future on the west side of South Palm Canyon Drive will be subject to additional environmental review. Finally, the addition of the mitigation measure/condition of approval replicated in Comment B-1, above, assures that further environmental review will be performed when a specific project is proposed for that portion of the plan area. B-4 Comment: Finally, another fact that the City must consider is the availability of new telemetry data concerning the presence of PBS on or near the project site. The Sierra Club understands that significant new information was recently collected that indicates PBS are present on or near the project site in greater numbers and on a more frequent basis than previously Imown. The Sierra Club is in the process of obtaining this information and will supplement these comments on or before the City Council hearing. Response: Comment noted. The City has not received any of the alleged information, although such information has been requested in the past from a number of entities. B-S Comment Before approving any amendments to the City's General Plan that would authorize development west of South Palm Canyon Drive, the City must prepare a subsequent EIR analyzing the changed circumstances and new information concerning the potential impact of such development on PBS. Among other things, this means that the City must analyze the adverse effects that the project will have on PBS in light of the fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated the area west of South Palm Canyon Drive as critical and essential habitat for PBS. Response: The addition of the mitigation measure/condition of approval replicated in Continent B-1, above, assures that further environmental review will be perfonned when a specific project is proposed for that portion of the plan area. Further, only a portion of the area referred to is designated critical habitat, and the majority of the land within the critical habitat boundary is designated as Conservation on the Specific Plan maps and is publicly owned. C. Worden, William, Richmond,Brechtel & Kilpatrick, Monte Sereno, June 24, 2003 C-1. Comment: The Sierra Club previously f led detailed written objections to the City's approval of the Monte Sereno project in letters dated October 18, 2002 and October 9, 2002. Among other things, those letters explained why the City's approval of the Monte Sereno project would violate the California Environmental Quality Act as well as the terms of the Stipulated Judgment regarding the SP-1 planning area. Those objections are equally applicable to the City's consideration of the proposed General Plan Page 5 of 5 70 7 V TN/City of Palm Springs Response to Comments/Carryon Park Resort EIR Addendum Amendments because the Amendments are designed to permit the continued processing and eventual development of the Monte Sereno project. Accordingly, the Sierra Club asserts that the City's approval of the proposed General Plan Amendments would violate CEQA and the Stipulated Judgment, and it the (sic) hereby incorporates its objections set forth in its October 18, 2002 and October 9, 2002 letters. A copy of these letters are (sic) attached. Response: Continent noted. The specific issues addressed by the cormnentor are shown below. C-2. Comment: The Sierra Club is appealing the Planning Commission actions for the reasons set forth in its letter submitted to the Planning Commission as part of the Record of Proceedings and which is incorporated herein by this reference. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Preliminary Development Plan, Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map violated the California Environmental Quality Act by ailing to adequately address the significant impacts tot he Casey's June Beetle and the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The Sierra Club is also concerned that the approval does not comply with the Sierra' Club's Stipulated Judgment with Canyon Development, the City of Palm Springs and its Redevelopment Agency. Response: Comment noted. The current proposed project does not include either the "Preliminary Development Plan" or the Tentative Tract Map, however, the EIR Addendum analyses current conditions and project impacts associated with the construction of single family homes on this site, and includes extensive biological analysis pertinent to the commentor's concerns. These analyses contain data and information regarding both the Casey's June Beetle and the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, and found that potential impacts to Casey's June Beetle can be mitigated with the imposition of mitigation measures included in the EIR Addendum. The analyses also found that there would be no impact to Peninsula-Bighorn Sheep from the development of the proposed housing. C-3. Comment: Since the 1994 Stipulated Judgment, various new developers, including Palm Canyon LLC and the Aqua (sic) Caliente Development Authority have obtained development rights previously held by Canyon Development, the original party to the Sierra Club suit. It is not clear at this point whether these new successors consider themselves bound by the Stipulated Judgment. Response: The comalentor is incorrect. Both the Agua Caliente Development Authority and Palm Canyon LLC have stated directly to the connnentor their intent to abide by the development requirements of the Stipulated Judgment, on more than one occasion. Additionally, the City fully intends to comply with the Stipulated Judgment in review and actions in this area. Page 6 of 6 "74#7mr TN/City of Pahn Springs Response to Comments/Canyon Park Resort FIR Addendum The plans currently proposed within the Specific Plan Amendment all reflect this intention, and conform to the Stipulated Judgment. C-4. Comments: The Project site is home to the Casey's June Beetle (CJB), a de facto endangered species endemic to a limited portion of the Palm Canyon drainage. From all that is known about its life history and distribution, this species meets all the criteria for listing under the Endangered Species Act. It is listed as a "Special Animal"by California Department of Fish & Game, and originally it was to be included in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Plan. Impacts to the CJB would be significant under CEQA, and were not analyzed in environmental review for SP-I or its amendment. Studies in recent years have shown the range of CJB to be within a mile radius of Smoke Tree Ranch....Smoke Tree Ranch's open lands were identified as a preserve for this species in earlier iterations of the CV MSHCP. But CJB and this potential preserve had been dropped from the current draft because the landowner was unwilling to sell its lands...There is no evidence ofprotective restrictions or covenants protecting the lands that were formerly proposed for preserve (sic), and they are currently zoned for commercial and residential uses... Although it is conjectured that this species may occur elsewhere, CJB have never been found outside the Palm Canyon area. According to wildlife agencies and the AMEC report, the only places in the Valley where there may be additional potential extant habitat for CJB would be in Dead Indian Canyon and Deep Canyon in Palm Desert. However, Dead Indian Canyon...Deep Canyon (have both been surveyed and).—no CJB have been found... The November 2001 biological report for the project confirms that CJB occur onsite. The total known habitat(worldwide)for this species is estimated to be approximately 296 acres, of which the project represents approximately 17%or 50.49 acres...The vast majority of this habitat onsite is intact, but all of this CJB habitat would be destroyed by the proposed project. This is clearly a significant impact under CEQA. The Mitigated Negative Declaration asserts that the payment of"an in- lieu fee of$600 per acre to the City or the Habitat Conservation entity as designated by the City of Palm Springs"will render impacts to CJB to a level of insignificance... ...If the Project is allowed to proceed forward, the result will be a reduction in range and numbers of CJB. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Please note that the comment has been abridged, due to its length. The entire comment, which consists of 2 pages of text, is included in its entirety in the attached letter. Page 7 of 7 7 A 7( TN/City of Pahn Sprmgs Response to Comments/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendum 15065, a project must be found to have a significant impact if it "has the potential to...reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species... "(emphasis added.) This mandatory finding of significance also mandates that use of a mitigated negative declaration for the Monte Sereno Project is inappropriate. An EIR must be prepared... Response: The CJB is not listed as endangered, rare or threatened by either the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish and Game. lu materials submitted by the Siena Club to the City prior to the Planning Cornnission meeting of December 17, 2002 for the Canyon South Golf Course remodelling project, a"Letter Report of Habitat Evaluations for Palm Springs June Beetle," dated 03 April 1997, and prepared by Frank T. Hovore, an acknowledged expert in the field was included. Page 3 of this report states: "Habitat areas around the northern margin of the airport(see map). A number of habitat patches persist in this area, the most extensive of which lie along the Whitewater river channel,parallel to the airport aligranent...The PSJB was taken at a locality near Highway I I I on Alejo Drive in the 1980's, and so may yet occur in one or more of these areas..." (emphasis added) This information contradicts the commentor's assertion regarding the limitation of habitat areas potentially associated with the CJB. However, in continuing negotiations between Palm Canyon LLC and the Sierra Club (June 2003), the two parties have come to agreement in principle as follows: 1. The payment of a$600 per acre fee to the City, for the purchase of open space/conservation lands, as previously included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 2. The payment of$85,000 total to the City or other conservation entity, for the purpose of purchasing CJB habitat off-site of the Monte Sereno project. These items are hereby added to the mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum, page 60, as items 8 and 9, under the section labeled "Monte Sereno Parcel." However, if requested by Palm Canyon, LLC, the $85,000 described in Paragraph 2, shall be deleted and a Supplemental Environmental Irapact Report to address CJB impacts shall be prepared. C-5 Comment: Potential impacts to the Peninsular bighorn sheep must be addressed in an SEIR. The Initial Study asserts that the project lies 114 mile outside the 2 Please note that the comment has been abridged, due to its length. The entire cormnent, which consists of 2 pages of text, is included in its entirety in the attached letter. Page 8 of 8 " 77 TN/City of Pahn Springs Response to Comments/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendmn designated critical habitatfor the Peninsular bighorn...It appears that critical habitat extends into and perhaps across Palm Canyon Wash in the immediate area, and that the project may, in fact, extend into critical habitat. This needs to be ascertained.... In view of the fact that Peninsular bighorn accessed Palm Canyon immediately adjacent to the project recently...plus the fact that the City is on notice that there is a vital Peninsular bighorn corridor in which this project occurs...plus the fact that the Monte Sereno project site is very likely in critical habitat, impacts to this endangered species need to be addressed... In 1996, the SP-1 area was identified as part of a corridor for the endangered Peninsular bighorn rams that have traveled between the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains...In 1998, the Peninsular bighorn were listed as an endangered species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. In November, 2000, a final Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep was approved. The Recovery Plan designated property within the east and west ends of SP-1 as essential habitat for the Peninsular bighorn. In February 2001, critical habit(sic)for the Peninsular bighorn sheep was designated by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Again, the east and west ends of SP-1 were designated as critical habitat for the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep. This new and substantial information give rise to potential impacts to an endangered species not known or considered when the original environmental assessments for the SP-1 and its amendments were completed... The biological report and environmental documentation for the project fails to acknowledge that the project lies in an existing corridor connecting the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains.... Arguably, this Peninsular bighorn corridor connection does not have ideal conditions for a bighorn corridor, because of two-lane Palm Canyon Drive and the existing golf course, as well as the approved Specific Plan... ...Until and unless an adequately sized and feasible alternate corridor for peninsular bighorn is secured for the future, impacts to the existing corridor have the potential to restrict the range of this endangered species. As discussed above, the Trustee Agencies have advised the City that SP-1, as currently proposed, intrudes too far west into Arenas Canyon alluvial fan to provide an adequate corridor for Peninsular bighorn.... Page 9 of 9 � �� TN/City of Palm Springs Response to Comments/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendum Response: The designation of critical habitat does not occur on the proposed Monte Sereno property, or on the adjacent wash3. The critical habitat designation applies to lands at or above the toe of slope, which occurs outside the golf course boundary several hundred feet. There is no recognized corridor for bighorn sheep in or adjacent to the project site. There is no mention of a corridor within the Specific Plan boundary in the Recovery Plan. The California Department of Fish and Game has previously so stated 4. The Final Draft Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan for the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation shows a Migration Corridor one mile south of the Specific Plan area, in the northeast confer of Section 1, TAS., RA S. This corridor, because of its elevated terrain and isolation, is a safer and more appropriate location for sheep migration. C-6 Comment: Sierra Club is concerned that the entire Project, i.e. development pursuant to SP-1, has been divided and piecemealed in a manner that is avoiding assessment of the Project's true impacts. Ofparticular concern, is the failure to consider all projects proposed by Palm Canyon LLC, including the anticipated subdivision at the western end of the SP-1 area (Alturas), the hotel and golf course project to be developed by the Aqua (sic) Caliente Development Authority, and all other components of SP-1, when considering the Project's overall environmental impacts. The result is an analysis that minimizes the indirect and cumulative impacts the Project (sic). Response: Palm Canyon LLC proposes no other project within the Specific Plan area, other than the Monte Sereno project. Its map for the Alturas subdivision has been withdrawn, and it holds no option or interest in that property at this time. As stated in response to comment B-1, above, the development of lands on the west side of South Palm Canyon Drive will be subject to further environmental review when specific projects are proposed. The original approval of SP-1 was under the control of a single developer. That developer was never able to perform, and the properties encompassed in the Plan were returned to the original owners. Individual property owners have since made applications to the City for various projects. The City has processed, as it is required to do, development proposals for single family homes and residential tracts, utilizing the certified 1991 EIR as "earlier analyses used," as allowed under CEQA. This EIR Addendum takes into account all known projects at this time, and demonstrates that the impacts associated with the Specific Plan amendment will be reduced as compared to those originally analysed. Circumstances associated with 3 Verbal Communication between James Bartel,Peter Sorensen, Guy Wagner,Doug Evans,October 29, 2002. 4 Letter from Alan Pickard,California Department of Fish and Game, dated November 26,2002. Page 10 of 10 "7 A 7 TN/City of Palm Springs Response to Comments/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendum the subject property have not significantly changed since the original development approval. The City's review of all projects under the Specific Plan includes requirements for the coordination of flood control improvements to assure interconnectivity, the application of mitigation measures in the certified EIR, and the implementation of the mitigation monitoring programs previously approved and adopted for the project. C-7 Comment: Finally, the environmental andplanning documents for the Monte Sereno Project conflict with respect to the number of units actually involved. The Notice of Completion references 87 residential units. The Negative Declaration refers to 89 residential units. The Project map refers to 90 residential lots. This issue should be clarified and confirmed prior to Project approval. Response: The Specific Plan Amendment allows up to 90 units on the Monte Sereno parcel. The Tract Map, when approved, may contain fewer units, depending on project design, but may not exceed that number without an amendment to the Specific Plan, once approved. C-8 Comment: Overall, the Sierra Club is concerned that the current division of project entitlements and the manner in which the SP-1 projects are being processed by the City is either intentionally or negligently subverting the intent and purpose of its Stipulated Judgment and environmental review requirements of CEQA. In 1993, Sierra Club and other plaintiffs entered into the Stipulated Judgment with Canyon Development and the City of Palm Springs and its Redevelopment Agency ("City'). It is Sierra Club's understanding that the City considers itself bound by the Stipulated Judgment, but that the City's position is that the Stipulated Judgment may not bind the current successors to Canyon Development. The Sierra Club objects to any attempt by Palm Canyon LLC or any other successor to avoid the terms of the Stipulated Judgment. Response: Please see response to comment C-3, above. C-9 Comment: Among other dings, the Stipulated Judgment provided that the original project proponent Canyon "use its best efforts to acquire property within the Western Restricted Area,provided it can acquire the property for fair market value.:...At the time the Stipulated Judgment was entered, Canyon Development was the developer of the land encompassing the hotel, golf course and Monte Sereno subdivision and other lands under SP-1. Property within the Western Restricted Area falls within the areas designated as essential and critical habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep. Accordingly, it is extremely important that the designated property be acquired and preserved as envisioned by the Stipulated Judgment. Page 11 of 11 ?#IAM TN/City of Palm Springs Response to Cominents/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendwn Currently, however, there is no indication that the Monte Sereno developer or Aqua (sic) Caliente Development Authority consider themselves bound the (sic)Judgment or obligated to participate in the purchase of property within the Western Restricted Area. Thus, the original intent and purpose of the Judgment is in jeopardy. It is Sierra Club's understanding that the Monte Sereno developer has an option to purchase the property in question. The Monte Sereno development should not be approved until such time as all developers enjoying the benefits of SP-1 have demonstrated compliance with the Sierra Club Judgment and a willingness to participate in the purchase and preservation ofproperty within the western end of SP-1. Response: The commentor is incorrect. First, Palm Canyon LLC no longer holds an option for the property referred to. Second, as the commentor is well aware, the vast majority of the land in the western restricted area has been secured as open space. Of the original 120 acres required under the Judgment, only 20 acres remain in private ownership. Third, the balance of the property owners in the projects will not benefit from the proposed density bonus placed on the west side property. Only the eventual developer of that property will be able to take advantage of this incentive. And finally, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes 38 acres more in conservation than the existing Specific Plan, or a 19% increase in conservation lands. The developers within the Specific Plan area have demonstrated that the intent and purpose of the Stipulated Judgment have been maintained consistently since the 1994 judgment. C-10 Comment: The City's application of the Stipulated Judgment provisions appears to be inconsistent. On the one hand, the City has not required the Project applicant to participate in the purchase of habitat within the Western Restricted Area. The City has also failed to require that the applicant comply with the provisions in the Stipulated Judgment related to construction in or near Palm Canyon Wash and the requirements to provide temporary equestrian access. The portion of Palm Canyon Wash adjacent to the Project is a main thoroughfare for a major recreational amenity in the City, Smoke Tree Stables. Horseback riding is a major marketing tool for the tourism industry in Palm Springs. Smoke Tree Stables is the only large commercial stable in the City. Tens of thousands of horseback riders a year pass through this part of the Wash...Palm Canyon Wash is the main equestrian access not only for the Indian Canyons, but also for trails in the Santa Rosa Mountains. Horses are unique among domesticated animal(sic), in that flight is their primary survival mechanism, and if there is massive disturbance in Palm Canyon Wash, especially during the tourist season, then there will be severe impacts to existing recreational opportunities. Addressing this issue is required under CEQA as well as the Judgment. Page 12 of 12 � �� TN/City of Palm Springs Response to Comments/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendum Response: The commentor is incorrect. As the coinmentor well knows, the Specific Plan includes a comprehensive system of trails, including trails through the Canyon South Golf Course to access the riding trails to the south and west. The Golf Course Remodeling project was conditioned to provide such a trail. Both the Agua Caliente Development Authority and Palm Canyon LLC will complete their required flood control improvements within the development requirements of the Stipulated Judgment, as previously stated. Should construction activities result in a temporary re- routing or blockage of access for equestrian activities, it would represent only a temporary and insignificant impact. C-11 Comment: On the other hand, the City is requiring the applicant to pay its `fair- share contribution" toward offsite food control, offsite roadway, and off- site traffic signals which are not required solely in order to develop this individual project, but are necessary to bring the balance of SP-1 to fi^uition. As the Impact Analysis and Mitigated Negative Declaration assert in the case of traffic impacts, the proposed residential project will not create any traffic hazards, and, in fact, the reduced land use densities now contemplated along Bogert Trail in SP-1 may remove the need for formerly warranted new traffic signals. Nevertheless,for purposes of mitigating contemplated overall SP-1 impacts, the City consistently imposes a fair-share burden of mitigation costs on this individual project, Monte Sereno. The City must require the application to comply with all provisions of the Stipulated Judgment, not just those it deems important. Response: The cormnentor is incorrect. The application of fair-share fees is, by definition,based on the individual impacts of each project. The application of impact fees has been consistent within the Specific Plan boundary, and has been lowered in the EIR Addendum, based on the lowered impacts associated with buildout of the Plan. The City is continuing to use the most recent information to establish and enforce the fair-share requirements for all projects within the Specific Plan area and the South Palm Canyon area as a whole. C-12 Comment: It is unclear whether the materials proposed for the Palm Canyon food control levee will conform with the Stipulated Judgment or not. At one point the Initial Study states that the food control analysis recommends compacted fill with concrete erosion protection. At another, it asserts that the levee is now proposed as rock-lined with natural plantings incorporated. This needs to be clarified. Response: The complete description of all flood control facilities is included on pages 44 through 51 of the EIR Addendum. The system is designed to integrate all lands within and outside the Specific Plan which contribute to flood flows in the area. The specifics of each portion of the design, including the rock-lined channel with natural plantings incorporated, will both conform to the development restrictions of the Stipulated Judgment, Page 13of13 7 402 TN/City of Palm Springs Response to Comments/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendum and the standards of the City's Engineering Department and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, as applicable. Final designs will be reviewed as projects are submitted and fully engineered. C-13 Comment: The Initial Study asserts that this project has no impact on policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. This is not the case. This project individually, and the greater Canyon project of which this is a part, do conflict with the Recovery Plan for Peninsular bighorn (herein incorporated by reference), Designated Critical Habitat for Peninsular bighorn, and Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn as delineated in the Recovery Plan and MSHCP process. As stated above, this project is located at the foot of Garstin Trail ridge which has repeatedly been used in recent years by Peninsular bighorn. This ridge is at the northernmost extension of the Santa Rosa Mountains directly opposite the San Jacinto Mountains...It is part of a corridor for bighorn moving between those ewe groups...Development of Monte Sereno has the potential to impede this movement. This is a potentially significant impact to an endangered species which has not been acknowledged, much less mitigated. Moreover, at the build out of SP-1 (of which Monte Serena is a part) as proposed with the proposed large hotel and housing, roadway improvements and development extending 112 mile up Arenas Canyon alluvial fan—a viable corridor to bighorn movement between the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa would be entirely blocked. Response: Please see responses to connnents B-1 and C-5, above. The Specific Plan Amendment acknowledges the jurisdiction of the Recovery Plan over the lands to the west of South Pahn Canyon Drive, and ensures further cnviromnental review. There is no corridor within or adjacent to the Specific Plan boundary. It is located one mile to the southeast. C-14 Comment: We acknowledge that, to address the issue of this now recognized Peninsular bighorn corridor, the USFWS and CDFG("Trustee Agencies'), the City, the Aqua (sic) Caliente, and the MSHCP Planners have discussed the potential for Peninsular bighorn to use an alternate corridor, since preservation of this part of the corridor is not promising. The alternate corridor that has been discussed would cross Arenas Canyon alluvial fan in a north-south direction in order to access the Indian Canyons Park and thereby provide bighorn access between the San Jacintos and the Santa Rosas. However, the Trustee Agencies have determined that development on Arenas Canyon fan must be adequately constrained in order to protect this potential corridor(as well as the Arenas Canyon habitat itself). As currently configured, SP-1 intrudes into such a corridor and into critical habitat. The maps and supporting documentation for Critical and Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn are hereby incorporated by reference. Page 14 of 14 � �� TN/City of Pahn Springs Response to Comments/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendum Response: The Monte Sereno project does not occur on the portion of the Specific Plan located in the Arenas Canyon alluvial fan area. As previously stated, the corridor proposed in the Tribal HCP, not in the Recovery Plan, occurs southerly and westerly of the Specific Plan area. See response to connnent B-1. C-15 Comment: The Initial Study for Monte Sereno refers to Palm Canyon LLC's development proposal for Arenas Canyon alluvial fan (the Alturas project TTM 30047). The application for this project may not be complete, but it has been submitted to the City as part of SP-1, and would extend well into Critical and Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn. It would not only adversely impact Critical Habitat, but also conflict with the Recovery Plan which mandates preservation of critical habitat and corridors. Response: As previously stated, the Alturas subdivision has been withdrawn. Also see response to coimnent B-1. C-16 Comment: It is interesting to note that the City regards the Monte Sereno portion of SP-1 as sharing responsibility for the impacts of the entire SP-1 when it comes to paying for off-site flood control and off-site roadway and traffic signal improvements. It should be perfectly understandable, therefore, that Sierra Club regards this portion of SP-1 as sharing responsibility for the both (sic) onsite and off-site impacts of the entire project when it comes to providing adequate habitat and corridors deemed necessary by the Trustee Agencies for survival and recovery of endangered Peninsular bighorn. The City has made it plain that the flood control structures required for the development of the western portion of SP-1 are financially infeasible for the developer of that portion of the project to bear...Hence, individual portions of the project must pay their share of these off-site facilities, even if, as in the case of Monte Sereno, these facilities are not required to construct and serve the individual project. Thus, it is clear that this development of this portion of SP-1, which is obligated to find a share of of costs for infrastructure, actually facilitates the development of the rest of SP-1. Response: The commentor misunderstands the principles of fair-share cost allocation. The flood control improvements needed for this area of the City(not only within the Specific Plan boundary)impact a number of properties. The City has recently retained the services of an engineering firm to detennine the share of all developments within the watershed as relates to flood control improvements. Monte Sereno, as with other projects in the area, will be assessed based on its direct impacts to the flood control system in the area. Since the California Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service have stated that no bighorn corridor exists in this area, and since Monte Sereno will not have any impacts on bighorn Page 15 of 15 7/t,90 Y TN/City of Palm Springs Response to Comments/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendum sheep, as previously stated, Monte Sereno should not be required to contribute to the mitigation of any impacts to PBS. C-17 Comment: In addition to the deficiencies outlined above, the biological report prepared for the Monte Serene Project has other deficiencies, including but not limited to the following. The report's biological resources map shows Palm Canyon Wash as "unvegetated. "Except for the stretch between Bogert Trail Bridge and the drop structure (less than 114 mile), the wash is dry wash woodland with mature vegetation, a plant community that is severely depleted in the Coachella Valley. The same map shows the area east of Palm Canyon Wash as "developed. " There is no development east of the project site. There are roads and an approved subdivision for perhaps 114 mile north of the bridge, but no development existing or contemplated for the balance of the project's eastern boundary. Response: Comment noted. The EIR Addendum correctly identifies the dry wash area adjacent to the project, and mitigates for its loss. A small portion of the area immediately east of the wash is developed with a road and development pads, and has been disturbed so that it cannot be considered to be in its natural state. The remaining area east of the subject property is undeveloped and cannot be developed. Page 16 of 16 TN/City of Palm Springs Response to Comments/Canyon Park Resort EIR Addendum SECTION I1 A. Worden, William, Rielnnond, Brechtel &Kilpatrick, Indian Canyons Resort Hotel, June 24, 2003 B. Worden, William, Richmond, Brechtel &Kilpatrick, Alturas Subdivision, June 25, 2003 C. Worden, William, Richmond, Brechtel &Kilpatrick, Monte Sereno, June 24, 2003 Page 17 of 17 n. A fair-share contribution toward the off-site roadway improvements and traffic signals outlined in Table 7, "Circulation Mitigation Measures", of the Amendment to Specific Plan#1 Environmental Assessment, as modified by a focused traffic study, shall be determined in a method meeting City approval and submitted to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. (This condition has been superseded by traffic mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103). o. Payment of TUMF shall be made prior to issuance of building permits. Please refer to Engineering Condition #54 for details. p. Regarding Casey's June Beetle, an in-lieu fee of $600 per acre for impacts to to 41.3 acres of creosote bush scrub and desert wash scrub ($24,780) shall be paid to the City or Habitat Conservation entity as designated by The City of Palm Springs prior to issuance of grading permits. (This condition has been included as part of a private agreement between Palm Canyon, LLC and the Sierra Club..Please refer to Condition #15.m. for any additional requirements). q. Regarding the desert tortoise,a"clearance survey"shall be initiated priorto grading permits. If the results of that survey are positive, coordination with USFWS and CDFG and permitting subject to Section 10(a)of the Federal Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act will be required. If the results are negative, then no further permitting will be necessary. (This condition has been superseded by biological resources mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103. Please refer to Condition #15.b. for details). r. Prior to grading, permits will be acquired from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board and CDFG.These agencies will establish any appropriate mitigation strategies through the permitting process. S. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be required in all homes outside of the 5 minute response time until a new fire station is constructed for the Specific Plan 1 A area. Developer shall contribute on a fair-share basis to the cost of developing a new fire station based on a formula adopted by the City. (This condition has been superseded by Fire Protection Services mitigation measures adopted in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments. approved 7116/03 . u. During rough grading of the site, archaeological monitoring shall be provided. (This condition has been superseded by cultural resources mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103. Refer to Conditions#9 and#10 for details). V. Grading or any other construction activity shall halt in the area where artifacts are uncovered and the City shall be notified if potentially significant remains or artifacts are found. (This condition has been superseded by cultural resources mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103. Refer to Conditions#9 and#10 for details). 6a. The final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. Final development plans shall include site plans, building elevations, floor plans, roof plans, grading plans, landscape plans, irrigation plans, exterior lighting plans, sign program, mitigation monitoring program, site cross sections, property development standards and other such documents as required by the Planning Commission. Final development plans shall be submitted within two (2) years of the City Council approval of the preliminary planned development district. 7_5b —b S� -7 c- At. 6b. The property development standards for this project shall be Section 92.01.00, R-1-13 Zone, except for the modifications to minimum lot size, building height, front and side front setbacks, and detached garages. Front setbacks for the residences and attached or detached garages will be considered at 10 to 15 feet.Side front setbacks for the residences and attached or detached garages will be considered at 20 to 25 feet. Building height will be considered at up to 22 feet, pending submittal of final development plans. 7a. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning and Zoning prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. Final landscape plans shall include the entire street right-of-way landscaped areas. The project shall be responsible for installation and maintenance of all landscaped areas within the right-of-way and easement area. 7b. The developer shall retain a biologisVecologist to develop and oversee the installation of a revegetation program for the Palm Canyon Wash. All areas disturbed, on and off-site, during grading and construction shall be restored. 8. The project is located in an area defined as having an impact on fish and wildlife as defined in Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code. Therefore, a fee of $1,314.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00 shall be submitted by the applicant in the form of a money order or a cashier's check payable to the Riverside County Clerk prior to Council action on the project. This fee shall be submitted by the City to the County Clerk with the Notice of Determination. Action on this application shall not be final until such fee is paid. 9. A native American Monitor shall be present during all ground disturbing activities within the Plan boundary. Should any buried deposits encountered, the Monitor shall have the authority to halt destructive construction and notify a qualified archaeologist to investigate, an if necessary prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Coordinator for approval. 10. Should cultural resources be encountered during site construction in any portion of the site, work shall immediately cease and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the materials. Any significant findings shall be documented and presented to the State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO), BIA,the Tribe and the City,and resolved to their satisfaction. 11. The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit a draft declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning and Zoning for approval in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to the certificate of occupancy for the first home in the subdivision. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the City, shall not be amended without City approval, shall require maintenance of all property and landscaping within right-of-way in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of$2000, for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney. A$250 filing fee shall also be paid to the City Planning Department for administrative review purposes. Cr-q-a &&le--Q -7 � � � �{E vl S & � Lb EXHIBIT A TTM 30046 and Case No. 5.0881 - PD-269 North of Bogert Trail, east of Goldenrod Lane, west of Palm Canyon Wash July 30, 2003 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,the Director of Planning,the Chief of Police,the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition. Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 2. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs,its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Specific Plan Amendments, TTM 30046 Case No. 5.0881 - PD-269. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not,thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify,or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgement or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 3. That the property owner(s) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation sidewalks, bikeways, parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, signs, walls, and fences between the curb and property line, including sidewalk or bikeway easement areas that extend onto private property, in a first class condition, free from waste and debris, and in accordance with all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner's sole expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the property if required by the City. 1"L-6; 1 Tt 0 4. The developer shall be responsible for compliance with the State Endangered Species Act and Federal Endangered Act prior to the issuance of grading permits, if deemed necessary by the applicable resource agencies. 5. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures of the environmental assessment as follows: a. Design and construction of a 30-inch storm drainage system meeting City and RCFCWCD approval to direct stormwater runoff within TTM 30046 to the Palm Canyon Wash. b. Design and construction of a flood wall (levee) protection system meeting City and RCFCWCD approval and consistent with the Settlement Agreement with the Sierra Club necessary to protect proposed residential development from Palm Canyon Wash 100-year water surface elevations. C. Design and construction of on-site rough grading plans for future residential development meeting City approval providing future pad elevations in excess of 2 feet above highest adjacent existing grade and/or in excess of 1.5 feet above the adjacent base flood elevation of the Palm Canyon Wash. d. Application to FEMA for processing of LOMR's required to amend to associated FIRM for TTM 30046 and to redesignate all proposed residential development from Zone AO and A 123 to Zone B or C. e. Final grading plans, hydrology analysis and construction plans shall be approved by the Public Works Director and RCFCWCD, as appropriate, prior to issuance of grading permit. f. Required LOMR's shall be submitted and approved by FEMA prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy with TTM 30046, g. A fair-share contribution toward the construction of the South Palm Canyon Drive bridge over the Arenas South drainage channel or other funding mechanism shall be determined in a method meeting City approval and submitted to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. h. Prior to issuance of grading permits the applicant shall obtain a 404 Permit and a 1603 Agreement (if required by law) and shall implement all mitigation measures called for in the 404 Permit and 1603 Agreement at the appropriate time to mitigate the project's impacts on Waters of the United States. i. Compliance with Chapter 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan, shall be required prior to the issuance of grading permits. j. Submit a Fugitive Dust Program to South Coast Air Quality Maintenance District (AQMD) for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. Such plan shall be consistent with EPA and AQMD rules in effect at the time of issuance of grading permits. k. All mitigation measures outlined in the SP-1 Mitigation Monitoring Program shall apply except where superseded. I. Prepare and submit a focused traffic study to update the analysis prepared for the amendment to the Specific Plan#1 Environmental Assessment. (This condition no longer applies due to traffic study completed for EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103). M. Determine any revisions or modifications to Table 7 "Circulation Mitigation Measures"of theAmendmentto Specific Plan#1 Environmental Assessment. (This condition no longer applies due to traffic study completed for EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103). n. A fair-share contribution toward the off-site roadway improvements and traffic signals outlined in Table 7, "Circulation Mitigation Measures", of the Amendment to Specific Plan#1 Environmental Assessment,as modified by a focused traffic study, shall be determined in a method meeting City approval and submitted to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. (This condition has been superseded by traffic mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103). o. Payment of TUMF shall be made prior to issuance of building permits. Please refer to Engineering Condition #54 for details. P. Regarding Casey's June Beetle, an in-lieu fee of $600 per acre for impacts to to 41.3 acres of creosote bush scrub and desert wash scrub ($24,780) shall be paid to the City or Habitat Conservation entity as designated by The City of Palm Springs prior to issuance of grading permits. (This condition has been included as part of a private agreement between Palm Canyon, LLC and the Sierra Club. Please refer to Condition #15.m. for any additional requirements). q. Regarding the desert tortoise, a"clearance survey"shall be initiated priorto grading permits. If the results of that survey are positive, coordination with USFWS and CDFG and permitting subject to Section 10(a)of the Federal Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act will be required. If the results are negative, then no further permitting will be necessary. (This condition has been superseded by biological resources mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103. Please refer to Condition #15.b. for details). r. Prior to grading, permits will be acquired from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional WaterQuality Control Board and CDFG.These agencies will establish any appropriate mitigation strategies through the permitting process. S. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be required in all homes outside of the 5 minute response time until a new fire station is constructed for the Specific Plan 1A area. t. Developer shall contribute on a fair-share basis to the cost of developing a new fire station based on a formula adopted by the City. (This condition has been superseded by Fire Protection Services mitigation measures adopted in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103). U. During rough grading of the site, archaeological monitoring shall be provided. (This condition has been superseded by cultural resources mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103. Refer to Conditions#9 and#10 for details). V. Grading or any other construction activity shall halt in the area where artifacts are uncovered and the City shall be notified if potentially significant remains or artifacts are found. (This condition has been superseded by cultural resources mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103. Refer to Conditions#9 and#10 for details). 6a. The final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. Final development plans shall include site plans, building elevations, floor plans, roof plans, grading plans, landscape plans, irrigation plans, exterior lighting plans, sign program, mitigation monitoring program, site cross sections, property development standards and other such documents as required by the Planning Commission. Final development plans shall be submitted within two (2) years of the City Council approval of the preliminary planned development district. 6b. The property development standards for this project shall be Section 92.01.00, R-1-B Zone, except for the modifications to minimum lot size, building height, front and side front setbacks, and detached garages. Front setbacks for the residences and attached or detached garages will be considered at 10 to 15 feet. Side front setbacks for the residences and attached or detached garages will be considered at 20 to 25 feet. Building height will be considered at up to 22 feet, pending submittal of final development plans. 7a. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning and Zoning prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. Final landscape plans shall include the entire street right-of-way landscaped areas. The project shall be responsible for installation and maintenance of all landscaped areas within the right-of-way and easement area. 7b. The developer shall retain a biologist/ecologist to develop and oversee the installation of a revegetation program for the Palm Canyon Wash. All areas disturbed, on and off-site, during grading and construction shall be restored. 8. The project is located in an area defined as having an impact on fish and wildlife as defined in Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code. Therefore, a fee of $1,314.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00 shall be submitted by the applicant in the form of a money order or a cashier's check payable to the Riverside County Clerk prior to Council action on the project. This fee shall be submitted by the City to the County Clerk with the Notice of Determination. Action on this application shall not be final until such fee is paid. 9. A native American Monitor shall be present during all ground disturbing activities within the Plan boundary. Should any buried deposits encountered, the Monitor shall have the authority to halt destructive construction and notify a qualified archaeologist to investigate, an if necessary prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Coordinator for approval. 10, Should cultural resources be encountered during site construction in any portion of the site, work shall immediately cease and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the materials. Any significant findings shall be documented and presented to the State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO), BIA,the Tribe and the City, and resolved to their satisfaction. 11. The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit a draft declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning and Zoning for approval in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to the certificate of occupancy for the first home in the subdivision. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the City, shall not be amended without City approval, shall require maintenance of all property and landscaping within right-of-way in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of$2000, for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney. A$250 filing fee shall also be paid to the City Planning Department for administrative review purposes. 12. Final development plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Canyon Redevelopment Plan and the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan EIR, as amended in 2003 (now known as Canyon South Specific Plan). Prior to approval of the Final PD and Final Tract Map,a comprehensive mitigation monitoring report consistent with the Monitoring Program shall be prepared and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning. The City shall be reimbursed for the cost of preparation and/or review of said report. Refer to City Council Resolution No. 17598 certifying the Final EIR for the Canyon Redevelopment Plan and Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan, City Council Resolution No. 18273 certifying the negative declaration for the General Plan Amendment and amendment to the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan#1,and City Council Resolution No. 20673 recertifying the Final EI,R for the Canyon South Specific Plan for specific details. All mitigation measures, where applicable, shall be adopted as conditions of approval. The following measures are hi-lighted for convenience: a. Prior to final project acceptance including approval of the final map or planned development district, the City shall establish a formula for the applicant's payment of their "fair share" of the costs of the matters listed below, and applicant shall pay fees pursuant to the formula or post such security as the City Attorney shall determine is appropriate. The fair share formulas shall be based on data developed by City or its consultants to determine the applicant's proportionate responsibility for providing the specified public improvements, and for producing affordable housing, based upon the benefits received by the project and/or impacts caused by the project. The costs shall include not only construction costs, but also design, engineering and other similar costs, as well as City administrative costs including the costs of developing the fair-share formula. Fair-share formulas shall be developed for the following matters: i) Funding of site acquisition and construction of a fire station providing adequate fire protection services to the project site and vicinity. ii) Funding of site acquisition and construction of affordable housing meeting the goals of the City's Housing Element. See Section 5-10 (5-184) Jobs and Housing for specific mitigation measures. iii) Funding of construction of off-site roadway improvements and signals as shown in Table 5.14 of the Canyon Redevelopment Plan and the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. b. Appropriate removal and recompaction of surface soils in areas to support structures will mitigate potential settlements. Building sites planned within the alluvial areas shall be evaluated by the soil engineer for settlement potential during detailed geotechnical studies for design of structures, with respect to the specifics of proposed structure locations, soil conditions, foundation loads, etc. A final soils report shall be submitted with the detailed development plans (grading and structural) for the project. c. All outdoor lighting constructed on the project site shall be directed at the ground to prevent unnatural lighting from interfering with the activity of nocturnal animals that live in the surrounding natural areas. Exceptions to this condition shall be limited to accent landscape and architectural lighting. All lighting which directly illuminates hillsides and wash areas shall be prohibited. This condition shall be included in the CC&R's. d. Prior to Final PD or Tentative Map approval, the applicant for a Final PD or Tentative Map proposed within the Specific Plan area shall prepare a detailed drainage plan which protects all proposed habitable structures from the 100-year storm and which is consistent with the Conceptual Drainage Plan described in Specific Plan #1A, as amended July 16, 2003. On-site surface drainage shall be designed to manage 10-year to 100-year storm runoff according to Riverside County Flood Control District and City Standards. Drainage facilities shall include: natural appearing structure&armoring; replacement of jurisdictional waters disturbed; revegetation and renaturalization to blend with the surroundings. Proposed drainage improvements shall be renaturalized using local rock materials and desert landscaping using as much of the on-site cactus and other desert plants as possible. e. The natural vegetation of the site shall be preserved in open space areas. Necessary grading or other disturbance in naturally vegetated areas shall be revegetated with drought tolerant non-invasive species. The applicant shall submit landscape plans to the Department of Planning and Zoning for review and approval. 13. Pursuant to the Sierra Club Judgement filed with the Riverside County Clerk on August 18, 1993: a. The Palm Canyon Wash flood control facilities shall be constructed for 100 year storm protection and shall include the criteria as specified in the judgement. b. Flood control construction work for Palm Canyon Wash shall be limited to the period from May 1 to November 1 of any calendar year. C. As a means of providing temporary equestrian access, the applicant shall refrain from using Palm Canyon Wash as a haul route. d. In accordance with Portion #4 of Exhibit D, a 30 foot wide hiking and equestrian path shall be provided in the Palm Canyon Wash bottom. 14. Final design of the Palm Canyon Wash flood control facilities is subject to City and RCFCWCD approval. In the event a concrete lined channel is required, Planning staff recommends that rock lining be added to soften the visual impact. 15. All mitigation measures and associated mitigation monitoring program in the Addendum to Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan EIR apply and are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval. The following are mitigation measures specific to the Monte Soreno project that have been highlighted for convenience: a. There shall be an emphasis on plant species native to the immediate region in the sensitive 100 yard wide area adjacent to natural hillsides. On a limited basis within residential yards, non-desert, non-invasive exotic plants may be utilized as ornamental landscaping. Two invasive species, tamarisk and fountain grass, shall be prohibited in the Specific Plan area. The proposed plan and landscaping palette for this area shall be subject to the review of the Director of the Department of Planning and Zoning or the Planning Commission and a qualified biologist who is acceptable to the City. b. Pre-construction tortoise surveys shall be required for any project north of Bogert Trail and west of Goldenrod Lane. The surveys shall occur no more than 36 hours prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity in the area. Should desert tortoise be identified,the project proponent shall secure permits from the California Department of Fish and Game and/or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as required. C. The project proponent(s)for any project requiring alteration of a stream or water of the United States shall secure 404 and 1603 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game, respectively, and 401 water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, if required by law. d. Project proponents within the Specific Plan boundary shall be required to construct a fence in the future, if it can be demonstrated to the City Council that direct impacts to bighorn sheep are caused by any component of the projects proposed within the Specific Plan boundary.Ten verified sheep sightings in a given 12 month period will cause the initiation of a site specific utilization study. The fence design, if required, shall be submitted to the City and any other responsible agency for review and approval prior to construction. The fence will be constructed within 12 months of notification by the City. e. All construction activity will be confined to the project site with the exception of the temporary and permanent disturbance along the western side of the wash (see Exhibit2 of"Biological Constraints Letter Report forthe Monte Soreno Development Project", by Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D., Michael Brandman Associates, December 2002). f. The limits of the temporary disturbance zone will be cordoned off to preclude vehicular access easterly into the remaining wash area. g. Construction activity shall stop before dusk each day to avoid attracting dispersing Casey's June Beetle males during the flight season (April 1 through May 31). h. Access to the construction site will come from Bogert Trail and will remain outside the wash. i. Controlling dust by spraying water will be permissible outside the flight season and only within the designated construction zone. j. The project proponent shall secure 2.46 acres of comparable desert wash habitat off-site as mitigation for permanent impacts. The 1.6 acres to be temporarily impacted shall be re-naturalized. k. A six foot wall or fence, meeting City standards, shall be constructed along the eastern property line of the project site. I. The payment of a $600 per acre fee to the City, for the purchase of open space/conservation lands, as previously included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. M. Palm Canyon shall pay $85,000, to be used for the acquisition of habitat for the Casey's June beetle, in addition to the $600 per acre required by condition 15.1. (hereafter"habitat acquisition funds"). The habitat acquisition funds shall be paid into an escrow for the City's benefit to be used for the acquisition of habitat for the Casey's June beetle in accordance with the terms of this Condition 15(m). Should the City,for any reason,decide not to accept the habitat acquisition funds,the funds shall be deposited into a separate escrow account for the benefit of an entity, public or private, to be designated by the Sierra Club, subject to the approval of Palm Canyon,which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The habitat acquisition funds shall still be used for acquisition of Casey's June beetle habitat. The money shall be deposited into an escrow account for the City or into a separate escrow account within 21 days of City Council approval of the Monte Sereno project application. For the purposes of this condition, date of approval shall be the date on which the last signature is placed on any resolution or ordinance required for the approval of the Monte Sereno project application. Palm Canyon shall provide written notice to the Sierra Club that the habitat acquisition funds have been deposited within 48 hours of their deposit. For the purposes of this condition, the acquisition of habitat for the Casey's June beetle shall mean the purchase or permanent preservation by way of conservation easements and/or deed restrictions habitat identified in an approved habitat conservation plan or habitat approved by the Sierra Club. The City or the entity designated in place of the City by the Sierra Club shall provide the Sierra Club written notice of an intended use of the habitat acquisition funds at least forty-five (45) days before such expenditure takes place and that failure to object in writing within thirty(30) of notice being mailed shall be deemed automatic approval by the Sierra Club. If, for any reason, Palm Canyon requests the return of the $85,000, the money, togetherwith accrued interest, shall be returned to Palm Canyon,this condition shall be deleted and the City shall prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to address the impact of the Monte Sereno project on the Casey's June beetle. 16. The developer shall prepare a focused traffic study, to be completed within six months of when 80% of the project is complete, to evaluate traffic impacts to Bogert Trail. The focused traffic study shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The developer shall be responsible for all improvements to mitigate impacts identified in the focused traffic study. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. 2. Manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior lighting (landscaping, and entry area) shall be submitted for approval prior to final map approval. 3. The design, height, texture and color of fences and walls shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Texture, materials, and colors to be used on the proposed fences and walls shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 5. This project shall be subject to Chapters 2.24 and 3.37 of the Municipal Code regarding public art. The project shall either provide public art or payment of an in lieu fee. In the case of the in-lieu fee, the fee shall be based upon the total building permit valuation as calculated pursuant to the valuation table in the Uniform Building Code, the feeing being 1/2% for commercial projects or 1/4% for residential projects with first $100,000 of total building permit valuation for individual single-family units exempt. Should the public art be located on the project site, said location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning and the Public Arts Commission, and the property owner shall enter into a recorded agreement to maintain the art work and protect the public rights of access and viewing. 6. Separate architectural approval and permits shall be required for all signs. A detailed sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 7. The grading plan shall show the disposition of all cut and fill materials. Limits of site disturbance shall be shown and all disturbed areas shall be fully restored or landscaped. 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Building Official. Refer to Chapter 8.50 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 9. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Engineering specifications. 10. Priorto the issuance of building permits,locations of all telephone and electrical boxes must be indicated on the building plans and must be completely screened and located in the interior of the building. Electrical transformers must be located toward the interior of the project maintaining a sufficient distance from the frontage(s) of the project. Said transformer(s) must be adequately and decoratively screened. 11. Trash cans shall be screened from view and kept within fifty(50) feet of the street. 12. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from all possible vantage points both existing and future per Section 93.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. The screening shall be considered as an element of the overall design and must blend with the architectural design of the building(s). The exterior elevations and roof plans of the buildings shall indicate any fixtures or equipment to be located on the roof of the building, the equipment heights, and type of screening. Parapets shall be at least 6" above the equipment for the purpose of screening. POLICE DEPARTMENT: 1. Developer shall complywith Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: 1. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured. FIRE: 1. Fire Department Access: Fire Department Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 901 and 902 CFC. (902.1 CFC) 2. Minimum Access Road Dimensions: Provide a minimum 20 feet unobstructed width. If parking on one side of the access road is desired, provide an additional 8 foot wide parking lane with opposing curb marked red with appropriate signage for a total 28 foot width. If parking on both sides of the access road is desired, provide an 8 foot wide parking lane on each side of the access road for a total 36 foot width. (902.2.2.1 CFC) 3. Turn-Around Requirements: Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The City of Palm Springs approved turn around provision is a cul-de-sac with an outside turning radius of 43 feet from centerline. (902.2.2.4 CFC) 4. Mandatory Fire Sprinklers: Project is beyond a 5-minute response time from closest fire station and therefore requires an automatic fire sprinkler system. Only a C-16 licensed fire sprinkler contractor shall perform system design and installation. System to be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA standard 13D, 1996 edition, as modified by local ordinance. The contractor should submit fire sprinkler plans when the building plans are submitted. This allows concurrent review of the fire sprinkler and building plans. 5. Water Systems and Hydrants: Underground water mains and fire hydrants shall be installed, completed, tested and in service prior to the time when combustible materials are delivered to the construction site. (903 CFC). Prior to final approval of the installation, contractor shall submit a completed Contractor's Material and Test Certificate to the fire department. (9-2.1 NFPA 24) 6. Residential fire hydrants: Residential fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with DWA specifications and standards. No landscape planting, walls, or fencing are permitted within 3 feet of fire hydrants, except groundcover plantings. 7. Site Plan: Provide the fire department with two copies of an approved site plan. Approved locations for fire hydrants will be marked on this site plan, with one copy being returned to the applicant. The second copy will be retained by the fire department. 8. Access During Construction: Access for fire fighting equipment shall be provided to the immediate job site at the start of construction and maintained until all construction is complete. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13'6". Fire department access roads shall have an all weather driving surface and support a minimum weight of 73,000 lbs. (Sec. 902 CFC) ENGINEERING: Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. STREETS 1. Any improvements within the street right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. Work shall be allowed according to Resolution 17950 - Restricting Street Work on Major and Secondary Thoroughfares. 2. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the Engineering Department. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Minimum submittal shall include the following, IF applicable: A. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department. B. All agreements and improvement plans approved by City Engineer, IF applicable. C. Proof of processing dedications of right-of-way, easements, encroachment agreements/licenses, covenants, reimbursement agreements, etc. required by these conditions. BOGERT TRAIL 3. The Main Entry shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 205 and have a minimum width of 85 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. 4. Construct a minimum 5 foot wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. 5. Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, 20 feet north of centerline along the entire frontage per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206. 6. Construct a Type C curb ramp meeting current California State Accessibility standards along both sides of the MAIN ENTRY per City of Palm Springs Std. Dwg. Nos. 214 and 212A. 7. Remove and replace existing pavement with a minimum pavement section of 3 inch asphalt concrete pavement over 6 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal, from edge of proposed gutter to clean sawcut edge of existing pavement along the entire Bogert Trail frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110 and 315. The pavement section shall be designed, using "R" values, by a licensed Soils Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. AVENIDA MARBELLA 8. The existing 50 foot wide easement for road purposes for Avenida Marbella (not constructed)may be abandoned; however, access to the Palm Canyon Wash by Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFC) equipment and personnel shall be maintained or provided in an alternate location.The developer shall coordinate relocation of Palm Canyon Wash access with RCFC and provide the City Engineer with documentation from RCFC supporting abandonment of the existing road easement, prior to approval of the final map. PRIVATE STREETS 9. The following traffic calming devices, OR equal, (the final configuration to be approved by the City Engineer) shall be incorporated into the on-site streets: Narrowed pavement `chokers' shall be provided at one location on Street "B" between Streets "A" and "E", one location on Street "D" between Streets "B" and "E", and one location on Street "F" between Streets "B" and "D", as approved by the City Engineer. Chokers shall be designed with a transition using 25 foot reverse curves and a 40 to 80 foot long, 20 foot wide (10 feet each side of centerline) narrowed travel way. The narrowed travel way shall be constructed with a colored or decorative Portland cement concrete section 6 inches thick as approved by the City Engineer. 10. The minimum pavement section for all on-site streets shall be 2-1/2 inch asphalt concrete pavement over 4-inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal. The pavement section shall be designed, using "R"values, determined by a licensed Soils Engineer and submitted with the Fine Grading Plan to the City Engineer for approval. 11. Construct a wedge curb,with the back of the wedge curb located 18.5 feet from both sides of centerline along all private street frontages, with 25 foot radius curb returns and spandrels as required at interior street intersections, per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206. 12. Construct 6 foot wide cross gutters as required at interior street intersections in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206. 13. Street intersection design for interior "L" street intersections shall be designed in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 104, or as approved by the City Engineer. 14. Off-set cul-de-sacs of interior streets shall be designed in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. 15. All centerline radii shall be a minimum of 130 feet. The proposed intersection of Street "B" and Street "F" shall be revised. The intersection shall be redesigned in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer, using a standard knuckle, or the centerline radius shall be increased to a minimum of 130 feet. 16. Construct minimum 10 wide driveway approaches for all lots in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201. 17. The following requirements for a gated entry shall be met to provide adequate setbacks and turning movements for vehicles entering the primary parking facilities of this project: A. Provide a minimum 50 foot setback to the access gate control mechanism B. Provide a turnaround after the mechanism for vehicles unable to enter the project C. Security gates shall provide a minimum of 20 feet clear width in one direction. D. Provide a separate lane of ingress for residents. SANITARY SEWER 18. All on-site sewer systems shall be privately maintained by a Home Owners Association (HOA). Provisions for maintenance of the on-site sewer system, acceptable to the City Engineer, shall be included in the Codes, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs) required for this project. 19. Connect all sanitary facilities to the City sewer system. Lateral shall not be connected at manhole. 20. Developer shall construct an 8 inch sewer main across all PRIVATE STREET frontages, or as required to provide sewer service to each lot. 21. Submit sewer improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the Engineering Department. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Minimum submittal shall include the following: A. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department. B. Proof of processing dedications of right-of-way, easements, encroachment agreements/licenses, covenants, reimbursement agreements, etc. required by these conditions. 22. The existing 8 inch and 12 inch public sewer mains extending through the project and proposed for relocation shall be relocated in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. The developer shall dedicate an easement for sewer purposes to the City of Palm Springs over the width of private streets for the relocated alignment of the public sewer system within the project.The relocated public sewer mains shall be separated from the private sewer system to be constructed to provide sewer service to lots within the project. GRADING 23. The proposed pad elevations shown on the tentative map are inconsistent with the City of Palm Springs Flood Hazard Ordinance. Approved pad elevations shall be established as required to demonstrate compliance with the Flood Hazard Ordinance including: design of on-site rough grading plans for future residential development meeting City approval providing future pad elevations in excess of 2 feet above each lot's highest adjacent existing grade in the AO Zone, and/or 1.5 feet above the base flood elevation in the A7 and Al Zones. 24. A copy of a Title Report prepared/updated within the past 3 months and copies of record documents shall be submitted to the City Engineer with the first submittal of the Grading Plan. 25. Submit a Grading Plan prepared by a Registered Professional to the Engineering Department for plan check. Grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval to submit for plan check prior to submittal to the Engineering Department. A PM 10(dust control) Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Division prior to approval of the grading plan. The Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Minimum submittal includes the following: A. Planning Department approval to submit for plan check. B. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department. C. Copy of Site Plan stamped approved and signed by the Planning Department. D. Copy of Title Report prepared/updated within past 3 months. E. Copy of Soils Report, IF required by these conditions. F. Copy of Hydrology Study/Report, IF required by these conditions. G. Copy of the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. 916 657-0687) to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 26. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks-3'wide and 6"deep - to keep nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways, or gutters. 27. Developer shall obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. (916)-657-0687)and provide a copy of same, when executed, to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 28. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.00, the developer shall post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per acre for mitigation measures of erosion/blowsand relating to his property and development. 29. A soils report prepared by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer shall be required for and incorporated as an integral part of the grading plan for the proposed site.A copy of the soils report shall be submitted to the Building Department and to the Engineering Department along with plans,calculations and other information subject to approval bythe City Engineer prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 30. Contact the Building Department to get information regarding the preparation of the PM10 (dust control) Plan requirements. 31. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project, applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the export of soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved "Notification of Intent To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties" (RIFA Form CA-1) or a verbal release from that office prior to the issuance of the City grading permit. The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-7.10 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert. (Phone: 760-776-8208) DRAINAGE 32. The developer shall accept all stormwater runoff passing through and falling onto the site and conduct this runoff to an approved drainage structure as required by the hydrology study prepared by Tettemer and Associates, Dated April 2001. 33. The eastern slope of the Palm Canyon Wash shall not be disturbed. 34. Developer shall pay a fair share contribution as approved by the City Engineer toward the construction of a bridge structure at the South Palm Canyon Drive crossing of the Arenas South drainage channel. 35. A portion of this property is in Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Zone A7 (Lots 25 through 29), Zone A13 (Lots 3 through 13) and the remainder is in Zone AO (Depth 1). Development of this project shall conform to all FEMA and City of Palm Springs Flood Hazard Ordinance requirements for these zones. 36. The developer shall design and construct a storm drain system outletting into the Palm Canyon Wash, as approved by RCFC and the City Engineer consistent with the proposed system included in the hydrology study prepared by Tettemer and Associates, dated April 2001. 37. The developer shall design and construct a hard lined levee flood wall system adjacent to the Palm Canyon Wash from the end of the existing levee north of the Bogert Trail Bridge to the north property line of the tract OR transition to the existing channel, and shall coordinate further drainage improvements within the Canyon Golf Course area as required by and approved by RCFC and the City Engineer, consistent with the proposed improvements included in the hydrology study prepared byTettemer and Associates,dated April 2001. 38. The developer shall submit an application and all required information to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to issuance of building permits. 39. Final grading plans, hydrology analysis and construction plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and RCFC, as appropriate, prior to issuance of a grading permit. ON-SITE 40. Any utility cuts in the existing off-site pavement made by this development shall receive trench replacement pavement to match existing pavement plus one additional inch. See City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. Pavement shall be restored to a smooth rideable surface. 41. All proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utilities shall be shown on the grading/street plans. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line.The approved original grading/street plans shall be as-built and returned to the City of Palm Springs Engineering Department prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 42. The developer is advised to contact all utility purveyors for detailed requirements for this project at the earliest possible date. 43. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any driveway which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code 93.02.00, D. 44. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Engineering specifications. MAP 45. The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property, the traverse closures for the existing parcel and all lots created therefrom, and copies of record documents shall be submitted with the Final Map to the Engineering Department. 46. The Final Map shall be prepared by a licensed Land Surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Department for review. Submittal shall be made prior to issuance of grading or building permits. TRAFFIC 47. The developer shall provide a minimum of 48 inches of sidewalk clearance around all street furniture, fire hydrants and other above-ground facilities for handicap accessibility. The developer shall provide same through dedication of additional right-of-way and widening of the sidewalk or shall be responsible for the relocation of all existing traffic signal/safety light poles, conduit, pull boxes and all appurtenances located on the BOGERT TRAIL frontage of the subject property. 48. Install a stop sign at the following interior street intersections as required by the City Engineer: Install a stop sign for vehicles egressing at the Main Entry. Install a three-way stop sign at Street "A" and Street"B". Install a stop sign on Street"C" at Street "E". Install a stop sign on Street "E" at Street "D". Install a stop sign on Street "E" at Street "B". Install a stop sign on Street "D" at Street"F". Install a stop sign on Street "H" at Street"F". 49. The developer shall replace all damaged, destroyed, or modified pavement legends and striping that is required by the City Engineer on the BOGERT TRAIL frontage prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 50. The developer shall pay a fair share contribution toward the off-site roadway improvements and traffic signals outlined in the Specific Plan, as amended on July 16, 2003. Payment of required fair share contributions shall be made prior to approval of a final map. 51. Street name signs shall be required at each intersection in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 620 through 625. 52. Low profile and glare protected lights shall be installed on each side of the Main Entry located on Bogert Trail. 53. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a minimum, all construction signing,lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State of California, Department of Transportation, "MANUAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES' dated 1996, or subsequent additions in force at the time of construction. 54. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee based on the RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ITE Code B land use. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing before the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, in conjunction with Case No. 5.0881 PD- 269 TTM 30046, for development and subdivision of 50.49 acres into 89 single family residential lots and associated on-site and off-site improvements, located north of Bogert Trail, east of Goldenrod Lane, and west of Palm Canyon Wash, applicant, Palm Canyon LLC, was mailed to each and every person on the attached list on the 18'h day of July, 2003. A copy of said Notice is attached hereto. Said mailing was completed by placing a copy of said Notice in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 18`h day of July, 2003. J PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk n _ 4 NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Case No. 5.0881 - PD-269 TTM 30046 North of,Bogert Trail, east of Goldenrod Lane, west of Palm Canyon Wash NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of July 30, 2003, The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall,.3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider Case 5.0881 - PD-269 TTM 30046, an application by Palm Canyon, LLC for a Planned Development District(PDD)and Tentative Tract Map 30046 for the development and subdivision of 50.49 acres into 89 single family residential lots and associated on-site and off-site improvements. The PDD application requests approval of modified property development standards for lot size, front yard setbacks, garage setbacks, and building height. Proposed modifications affect on-site development are consistent with Specific Plan #1. Associated improvements include construction of a flood control channel within the Palm Canyon Wash. The property is located north of Bogert Trail,east of Goldenrod Lane, and west of the Palm Canyon Wash, Zone W-R-1-B and SP-1, Section 35. An Environmental Assessment and Addendum to the Environmental Impact Reportfor the Canyon Park Resort and Spa has been prepared and will be reviewed by the City Council at the meeting. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for the subject proposal. Members of the public may view this document in the Department of Planning and Building, City Hall, 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the City Council hearing. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the City Council hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Jing Yeo, Associate Planner, (760) 323-8245. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk Publish: The Desert Sun 7-19-03 VICINITY MAP r E. PALM CAM DRIVE ..�l wr ' YERNE WAY 12 N 11/ MURKY CANYO . SITE C Gp�y a � 9 Qp� BOGERT TRAIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO. 5.0881-PD269 TTfv W046 DESCRIPTION APPLICANT Palm Canyon;LLC Application for the subdivision of 50.49 acres into 89 singe family residential lots, Zone W-R-.1-B and SP-1, Section 35( Velma Burnell From: Loretta Moffett Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 2:52 PM To: Velma Burnell Subject: Case No. 5.0881 sponsors... Here are the two sponsors....for the above case that I brough over a little while ago.: Mainiero, Smith &Associates Attn: Marvin Roos 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Suite 301 �' J 6�WZ'C— t, Palm Springs, CA 92262 { Palm Canyon LLC Lee H. &Eric Brandenburg -/ 1122 Willow Street, Suite 200 San Jose C 95125-3157 i 0091S lesel slage7 ssaippV ®AU3AV Q%/ f 512-140-001 512-19 002 512-140-003 Canyon Vista Canyon V Canyon st 505 S Farrell Dr 75 505 S arre Dr 75 505 S Farr 1 -Dr 75 Palm Springs, CA 92264 i Palm Springs, CA 92264 i Palm Spri gs, CA 922454 512-160 003 512-190-001 512-190-002 znyon s i � Holdings 3 Spc ! ', M & R Inv American Pacific St ell Dr 75 1122 Willow St 200 1122 Willow St 200 Spri gs, CA 92269 San Jose, CA 95125 San Jose, CA 95125 512-190-00 512-190-008 512-190-009 M & R v American Pacific Stl M & R In American Pacific St! M & R In erican Pacific St 1122 Wi o St 200 1122 Willo 00 1122 Will St 200 San se, CA 95125 San Jo , CA 125 San Jos , CA 95125 512-190-014 512-190-026 512-190-027 Desert Water Agency Palm Canyon Llc ' City O Palm rings PO Box 1710 333 W Santa Clara St 1212 PO Box 2 Palm Springs, CA 92263 San Jose, CA 95113 Palm Sprin s, A 92263 512-190-028 512-190-031 512-1 -032 Rib Ii Noah T & Jacqu ine Suitt Palm C you 1156 W Shure Dr A PO Box 2290 333 W Sa Clara St 1212 Arlington He, IL 60009 Palm Sprin , CA 3 San Jos 95113 512-190-033 512-190-034 512-190-035 Noah T & Jacqueline Suitt Redlands Investment Group Inc' Noah T & Jacqueline Suitt PO Box 2290 3915 Mission Ave 7-208 PO ,Box 2290 , Palm Springs, CA 92263 Oceanside, CA 92054 Palm Springs, CA 92263 512-190-037 512-190-038 512-1 0-039 Jill & Edward Perry Furer Llc Palm C you 1000 E Bogert Trl 1000 E Bogert Trl 1122 Wit St 200 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm -Springs, CA 92264 San Jose, CA 5125 I 512-190-040 512-190-041 512-1 0-042 Palm Ca on Palm Ca on Palm C you 1122 Willo t 200 1122 Will St 200 1122 Wil St 200 San Jos CA 125 San Jos CA 5125 San Jos 95125 512-190-043 512-190-099 512-190-045 Palm C nyo Palm Ca o Palm Canyon 1122 Wi w St 200 1122 Wi w St 200 1122 Willow St 200 San J se, 95125 San Jo e, 95125 San Jose, CA 95125 512-190-046 512-190-047 512-190-048 Palm yo Palm Cany Palm C o 1122 Wi St 200 1122 Wil o t 200 1122 Will t 200 San J e, CA 5125 San Jose, CA 95 San Jos , CA 9 25 r 00915 Mel fg, slagej ssaippV ®AMAV Off/ 512-190-04 512-200-016 512-200-025 Palm Canyon Canyon Vis Canyon Vi to 1122 Will 200 505 S Far Dr 75 505 S Fa 1 Dr 75 San Jos , CA 9 125 Palm S ings, CA 92264 Palm rings, CA 92264 512-210-027 512-210-026 512-210-030 Alberni Group Hosea E & Barbara Brown Andreas Inv Assoc 3305 Spring Mountain Rd 60B 940 N Avenida Olivos 3252 E Bogert 1'rl Las Vegas, NV 89102 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 512-210-032 512-210-048 512-210-049 Alain Salmea ! Wew Construction Inc Kji Inc , !, PO Box 5033 31910 Avenida Alvera B 3700 Campus Dr 201 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Cathedral City, CA 92234 Newport Beach, CA 92 660 l ll J 512-2 0-0 512-260-001 512-260-002 Alain S lmea Paul J & Julia Zech ! Henry E & Carol Schielein I PO Box 5 3 1122 Willow St 200 1221 W Coast Hwy I Palm Sp in s, CA 92263 San Jose, CA 95125 Newport Beach, CA 92663 512-260-Q03 512-260-004 512=260-005 1 David P & Sara Skersick *M* Richard & Sally Martinez ! Norman F & Nancy Stoffer 31882 Camino Capistrano 1632 Abajo Dr 3090 Goldenrod Ln San Juan Cap, CA 92675 Monterey Park, CA 91754 Palm Springs, CA 92264 II � 1 1512-260-006 512-260-007 512-260-008 David D Reeder ! Alisa T Kaiser ! Palm Canyon *M* 14571 'Round Valley Dr 3070 Goldenrod Ln 1122 Willow St 200 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Palm Springs, CA 92262 San Jose, CA 95125 i 512-260-009 512-260-010 512-260-011 Palm Ca on Marshall & Denise Gilert MSJOYCE BITAR 1122 Will St 200 3030 Goldenrod Ln PO BOX2048 San Jos , CA 25 Palm Springs, CA 92264 CARLSBAD CA 92018 512 -261-002 512-261-003 512-261-004 I R Way Inc Kaplan I Glen & Carol Jenkins PO Box 696 101 Columbia Dr PO Box 64 1 Cathedral City, CA 92235 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Manzanita, OR 97130 I 512-261-005 512-261-006 512-280-001 Jon M Caffery Donald H Lipsih James E Smagala 1 1444 S Alpine Dr 384 E Valmonte Sur 130 E Carrillo St I West Covina, CA 91791 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 1 512-280-014 512-280-015 512-28 -016 Walter J Holiday Peter & Nan Tynberg *M* Walter - of_ of ay 5625 Windsor Way 1599 N Via Norte 5625 Winds Way Culver City, CA 90230 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Culver y, C 90230 J / ®09L5 aasel OE8 slopq ssaippV ®Av3^V Q� � 512-280-025 512-310-002 � ! 512-310-003 Edward F & Susan Berault City 0 Pa ings l Robert W & Anita Ridclell 955 Bogert Trl PO Box 2 lm 1001 Andreas Palms Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 j ? Pal prings, 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92264 512-310-009 512-310-005 512-310-006 Norman G & Jeanne Oliver !, I, Gerald T & Roxanna Sorenson Arlis Whiffen 380 W Alameda Ave I 1005 Andreas Palms Dr 1 PO Box 249 Burbank, CA 91506 Palm Springs, CA 92269 Green Lake, WI 54941 it 1 , 512-310-014 512-310-015 512-310-016 Michael & Jenny Mclean Brad C & Wanda Neste Nan & Peter Tynberg *M* 477 S Palm Canyon Dr 1 4070 Airport Center Dr 9 King Edward Ct Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 512-310-017 512-310-018 512-310-019 1 Arley E & Karen Nichols *M* L M Healey Stephen 0 Johns 8560 2Nd Ave Ne 1040 Andreas Palms Dr 5203 Sand Point P1 Ne Seattle, WA 98115 ! Palm Springs, CA 92264 Seattle, WA 98105 l 512-310-020 512-310-021 512-310-022 Stefan E Hornak1 Roderick G & H Johnson *M* William A & Janis Neighbors 1036 Andreas Palms Dr 1034 Andreas Palms Dr 24825 Tranquil Way Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Moreno Valley, CA 92557 i 512-310-026 512-310-027 512-310-028 Mark A Temple William J Gillespie Flottemesch 1010 Andreas Palms Dr 3334 E Coast Hwy 443 1033 Andreas Palms Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Palm Springs, CA 92264 512-310-029 512-310-030 512-310-031 T Capra Irvin B & Pamela Green Dominic P Mushines 1035 Andreas Palms Dr PO Box 1725 1039 Andreas Palms Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92264 512-310-032 512-310-033 512-310-034 Landau Development Cc *M* Allen R & Annette Saari Homer L Knapp 2825 E Tahquitz Cyn Way D1 441 S Calle Encilia 14 1016 Andreas Palms Dr Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 512-310-035 512-310-036 512-310-037 Marcel & Mary Latulippe *M* A A & Marhelith Lopez Const Industry A 2190 E Mcmanus Dr 1012 Andreas Palms Dr 1599 N Via Norte Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 i ! I 512-310-038 512-310-039 512-310-040 John J Finazzo Rosario & Helen Costantino Nathan M & Geraldine Israelso 1004 Andreas Palms Dr 1006 Andreas Palms Dr 1008 Andreas Palms Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 r Te -imdu r , n . Neighborhood Coalition List MR PETER DIXON i MR BILL DAVIS AND Case 5.0881-PD-269 431 SOUTH MONTE VISTA DRIVE MS TRISHA DAVIS PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 227 SOUTH CAHUILLA PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR FRANK TYSEN MR JOHN HURTER MR BOB WEITHORN C/O CASA CODY COUNTRY INN PO BOX 2824 261 SOUTH BELARDO ROAD i 175 SOUTH CAHUILLA ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2824 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 i MR TIM HOHMEIER MR BOB SEALE MR PHIL TEDESCO 1387 CALLS DE MARIA 280 CAMINO SUR 1303 WEST PRIMAVERA DRIVE PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 MR MARSHALL ROATH MS MARGARET PARK MS SHERYL HAMLIN AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF 565 WEST SANTA ROSA DRIVE CAHUILLA INDIANS=J=`J--D-J -J -J CAHUILLA INDIANS PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 650 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS VERIFICATION NOTICE-D -J-D PLANNING &ZONING DEPT ATTN: SENIOR SECRETARY PO BOX 2743 i PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2743 Velma Burnell From: Loretta Moffett Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 2:52 PM To: Velma Burnell Subject: Case No. 5.0881 sponsors... Here are the two sponsors....for the above case that I brough over a little while ago.: Mai niero, Smith&Associates Attn: Marvin Roos 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Suite 301 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Canyon LLC Lee H. &Eric Brandenburg 1122 Willow Street,Suite 200 San Jose C 95125-3157 i PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) No.5215 _ - NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING County of Riverside CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Case No. 5.0831 - PD-23'D Ti M 30046 Month of Beget Trail, east of Goldenrod Long, west of Pat,, Canyon Wash NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Sprngs, Calrfarnia, will hold a Public hearing at its meeting of July 30,2003 The City Council meeting begins at 700 p.m in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E Tahqurtz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of The ppurpose of the hearing is to consider Case 5.0881 - PD-269 TTNI 30046, an ap pllcaoon by the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen Palm Cag)om LLC for a Planned Uevelopmant District (PDD) and Tentative Tract Mapp 30046 for years,and not a party t0 Or interested In the the development and subdivision of 50.49 acres info 80 single tam0y residenbal lots and assoclat- abOVC-CptltlCd matter.I am the pl'10Clpal CI¢Yk Of a ed on-silo and off-site improvements. The FEB printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING aPphcatron requests approval of modified proper- 9y deveiopmont standards for lot site, front yard COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, setbacks, gar tb a e seacks, and building height. Proposed modifications affect on-srte develop- printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, ment are consistent with Specific Plan rtt.Associ- County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been cited Improvements include construction of a 4 Flood control channel within the Palm Canyon adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Wood aii,'east of Goldenrod Is oLane. and Westof9the Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of Palm 35 Section Canyon Wash, zone W-R-1-0 and SP-1, California under file date of March 24,1988.Case Sec _ Number 191236; that the notice,of which the -VICIN17-YMAP annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller than non pariel,has been published in each regular I� - and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: _ may" sI July 190' ____________________________---_--___-________ - p,�1 as All in the year 2003 i crrr of rai.nrs I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the _ foregoing is true and correct. An Environmental Assessment and Addendum to 21,t the Envnanmental Impact Report for the Canyon • Park Resort and Spa has been prepared and will • e reviewed by the City Council at the meeting.A Dated at Palm Springs,CaliforniaCllfOrnla this---------day draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Enviren- July mental Impact has been prepared for the subject 2003 proposal. Members of the public may view this ----------------- document in the Deppartment of Planning and of r Building City Hall,3200 E.Tandurtz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments to the City Clerk at, or pnor to, the City Council hearing. If any group challenges the action In court, issues ----------------�---'- iaisetl may be limited to only those Issues ialsed -_--- ----------Signature ,v the pubic heanng described In this notice or In wntten correspondence at, or prier to the City Council hearing, An opportunity wtll be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard.Questions regaid- Ing this case mayy be.dnected to Jing Yes, see- I elate Planner, (760)323-8245. PATRICIA A. SANr 75 �r 8p 0Z5 ZSgg Nan �. pelta IVpia TYl,b �(36, i SprZngs°rte erg �M+ 9226 <7 ter; 7-`—__ rhea alehZaa�1DJ' C, Ue�ne cA d g me Ltd L1 pA o1 0 \ -9 d d 1Z3 S� 1` 90 0 \ �;e ✓�f r'- 4 _�; g ar7 39 ocean Mai i °�A tmeht Ve G �,,. 92054 2019 out Z4c I'h/ A1bern.t SZ2 G°�2sh 310 Z,599 t I 03, - Slgas�r ArZ�gsNOt�eA CA d FaI7 E pa1 '77o L1.bs1 Spr 12 1n9s c4s�2 262 faNq� -030 p Bn4s ATr1c ✓ , ' rj 64 -uufornia 92263-2�143 �?r? ; Ddpl 26Z pp3 an 1 Co1 \?n ho (y�9e Dr CA 922�0 -- aR b <19o,0 2e ,o gto U D be �r An��i 6 TG9N 15,610 `' �rj Sfiyrp°e F� s� �ao,6 10,o o� �-Q Q �e r <,'eN nk,, - a� ".o r; RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TTM 30046 AND CASE NO 5.0881 - PD-269, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS STATED, TO SUBDIVIDE A 50.49 ACRE PARCEL INTO AN EIGHTY NINE (89) LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED NORTH OF BOGERT TRAIL, EAST OF GOLDENROD LANE,AND WEST OFTHE PALM CANYON WASH,ZONE W-R-1-BAND SP-1, SECTION 35, WHEREAS, Palm Canyon, LLC(the"Applicant")filed an application for Tentative Tract Map 30046 and Case 5.0881 - PD-269 to subdivide a 50.49 acre site into eighty-nine (89) lot residential subdivision (the "Project") pursuant to Section 94.02.00 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 9.60. The project is located north of Bogert Trail, east of Goldenrod Lane, and west of the Palm Canyon Wash, Zone W-R-1-B and SP-1 Zone, Section 35; and WHEREAS,A Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR)was prepared forthe Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan (SP-1) and was certified and adopted by the City Council on July 19, 1991; an Environmental Assessment (Mitigated Negative Declaration) was certified and adopted on January 19, 1994; and the EIR for the Canyon South Specific Plan (SP-1A) was recertified and adopted by the City Council on July 16, 2003, in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the portion of TTM 18087 located on the subject property was approved by the City Council for 10 lots and has been recorded as a final subdivision map; and WHEREAS, the portion of TTM 18087 located on the subject property was reverted to acreage through a lot line adjustment; and WHEREAS, said applications were submitted to appropriate City Department for their review; and WHEREAS,said comments and requirements have been dulyconsidered and are reflected herein; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider TTM 30046 and Case No. 5.0881 - PD-269, was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2002, a meeting on the application for Tentative Tract Map 30046 and Case No. 50881 -PD-269 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider TTM 30046 and Case No. 5.0881 - PD-269, was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2003, a meeting on the application for Tentative Tract Map 30046 and Case No. 50881 - PD-269 was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and Ie4a� WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3, the City Council has considered the effect of the proposed subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 30046, on the housing needs of the region in which Palm Springs is situated and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; the approval of the proposed project represents the balance of these respective needs in a mannerwhich is most consistent with the City's obligation pursuant to its police power to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental QualityAct("CEQA"),and an Environmental Assessment has been prepared forthis project and has been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the Project, including but not limited to the staff report, all environmental data including the environmental assessment prepared forthe project and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA,the City Council finds that,Tentative Tract Map 30046 and Case No. 5.0881 - PD-269 are in compliance with the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan that was certified and adopted on July 19, 1991 and recertified on July 16, 2003 and the additional Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), certified and adopted on January 19, 1994 is in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines.The FEIR, MND,and current environmental assessment for TTM 30046 adequately address the general environmental setting of the proposed Project, its significant environmental impacts, and the alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant environment effect for the proposed project. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered Tentative Tract Map 30046 and Case No. 50881 - PD-269 and determined that the plans are in conformance with the information contained in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council further finds that the decision reflects its independent judgement. The justification for not preparing a subsequent EIR is provided in the EIR Addendum. The revised project does not involve: • substantial changes to the project analyzed in the EIR which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the EIR or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts; or • new information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the EIR or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. The preparation of an EIR Addendum is appropriate if some additions and changes are necessary but there are no new significant effects, no increase in the severity of impacts, and there is no new information that was not previously analyzed. The Specific Plan amendment would result in: • a reduction in overall density of the Specific Plan by 37 units; • the location of 230 single family residential units west of South Palm Canyon Drive; • the removal of any hotel, commercial, and restaurant uses from west of South Palm Canyon Drive; and • a 38% reduction in the number of trips generated by the project. All potential impacts were previously analyzed and the impacts associated with the Specific Plan Amendment will be reduced due to the overall reductio in density, the reduction in intensity of land uses west of South Palm Canyon Drive, and the increase in lands designated for conservation. The existing development is consistent with the proposed and existing Specific Plan and therefore, conditions have not changed. The information in the EIR and subsequent environmental assessments are consistent and the components of the project are consistent. Section 2: The City Council finds that there is no new substantial evidence with respect to environmental effects that has been submitted to the City and there are no substantial changes with respect to the project that would require revisions to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report and MND. The current project proposed an eighty-nine(89)residential lot subdivision which is substantially fewer than the project analyzed in the original Final Environmental Impact Report and the MND. Since the potential for impacts has been lessened there is no need for further environmental review. Section 3: The City Council finds that a mitigation monitoring program was previously adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the above referenced mitigation measures during Project implementation. The City Council finds that with the reduced density of development and reduced impacts within the Palm Canyon Wash, the potential for an impact is even less than what was analyzed in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report and MND. Section 4: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and improvement are compatible with the objectives, polices, and general land uses and programs provided in the City's General Plan and Canyon South Specific Plan. Section 5: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65567, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and improvements are compatible with the objectives, policies, and general land use provided in the City`s local open space plan. Section 6: Pursuant to the Canyon Park Resort & Spa Andreas Palms and Sierra Club Judgement, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with the measures regarding equestrian trail access and criteria for Palm Canyon Wash flood control facilities. In response to the findings made in the Sierra Club 763 Settlement Agreement, the applicant has proposed a 30 foot wide levee access road, a wash design that meets or exceeds the criteria set forth in the judgement, and agreement with the requirements for equestrian access during construction. The Wash bottom will have a width of 520 feet and the levee will provide 100 year storm protection and be constructed to RCFCWCD and City standards. The levee will only be located on the west side of the Wash with no disturbance to the east side. In accordance with the 1994 Mitigation Monitoring Program for Amendment to Specific Plan 1, the developer is also required to renaturalize drainage improvements using local rock materials and desert landscaping using as much of the onsite vegetation as possible. Section 7: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474(Subdivision Map Act), the Planning Commission finds that with the incorporation of those conditions attached in Exhibit A: a. The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and SP-1A and is similar to the previously approved tentative tract map. SPA allocated over 100 units to the subject property. The proposal is for 89 units and is therefore below the density parameters of the Specific Plan. b. The design of improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and improvement are compatible with the objectives, polices, and general land uses and program provided in the City's General Plan and any applicable specific plan. All street,drainage,and utilities improvements are subject to the standards of the General Plan, Conditions of Approval, and mitigation measures associated with TTM 30046 and Case No. 5.0881 - PD-269. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development contemplated by the proposed subdivision. The property is 50.49 acres of relatively flat desert with vegetation characteristic of the Creosote Scrub - Cheese Bush Dominated Community and desert wash scrub. A portion of the site was previously approved for development as part of a larger subdivision (Tract 18087)but was reverted to acreage through a lot line adjustment. The site is now proposed for an eighty-nine (89) lot subdivision. There will be no incompatibility issues as the surrounding land uses are also within SP-1. There is the Canyon South Golf Course to the north,single family residences and vacant land to the west, Palm Canyon Wash to the east, and a single family residential subdivision to the south. d. The design of the proposed subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish orwildlife or their habitat. ?c All potential land use and biological impacts as a result of developing the subject property are fully disclosed in the Environmental Assessment, previous MND, Final EIR, and EIR Addendum. The project site lies outside the Peninsular Range Bighorn Sheep Critical Habitat and lacks occupation or activity by species of special concern. However, two sensitive wildlife species were detected on adjacent properties and mitigation measures have been introduced to reduce the effects on biological resources to less than significant impact. The applicantwill also be required to obtain a 403 permit and 1603 agreement, and implement all mitigation measures, for impacts to land subject to review by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game. e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements must follow the conditions of approval including, but not limited to, the application of the Uniform Building Code Seismic Safety Standards, and the City of Palm Springs Fugitive Dust Control Ordinance in order to ensure public health and safety. f. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The 50 foot wide easement for Avenida Marbella (not constructed) may be abandoned provided the applicant provides access to the Palm Canyon Wash for RCFCWCD equipment and personnel. Bogert Trail will be improved to collector street standards in accordance with City specifications, and the private streets inside the development will incorporate traffic calming designs. Section 8: Pursuant to Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds that with the incorporation of those conditions attached in Exhibit A: a. The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a Planned Development District is authorized by the City's Zoning Ordinance and SP-1. The proposed Planned Development District will allow for integrated design of the subdivision and adjacent streets. The Specific Plan is to be implemented via Planned Development District and subdivision maps, therefore, the PD is the appropriate land use review for this development. b. The use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, zoning designations, and land use designations in SP-1. Tentative Tract Map 30046 will have 89 single family residential units, below the allocated 100+units in SP-1. The project will make up a portion of the overall Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan and will therefore be compatible with existing and future uses in the zone. Any land use or biological impacts are fully disclosed in the Environmental Assessment. "7 Cr C. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping, and other features required in order to adjust said use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood. The applicant is requesting the entitlement of subdividing an existing 50.49 acre parcel into eighty-nine(89)single family residential lots. The lots average 16,483 square feet with the smallest lot being 14,000 square feet and the largest lot being 28,025 square feet. The property is zoned W-R-1-B with an overlay of Specific Plan - 1 (SP-1). The property is vacant with the northeast portion that was subdivided into 10 single-family lots (Tract 18087), although it was reverted to acreage through a lot line adjustment The overall density is well within the adopted master plan allowance of over 100 dwelling units. Access to the property will be from a gated entry on Bogert Trail. Thirty feet of right-of-way and public utility easement is proposed to be dedicated from the subject tract to the City of Palm Springs. Existing improvements consist of a 2-lane undivided, unstriped roadway. Internal circulation consists of a series of private streets and a cul-de-sac. Roadways within the subdivision would be privately maintained as would the four(4)lettered lots that include landscaping in front of the subdivision on Bogert Trail The Planned Development District includes adjustments to the R-1-B property development standards, namely, minimum lot size, building height, reduction in front setbacks, and allowance of detached garages. The R-1-13 zone requires a minimum lot area of 15,000. The proposed average lot area is 16,483 square feet with unit size yet to be determined. Lot sizes range from 14,000 square feet to 28,025 square feet. The maximum building height permitted within the R-1-13 zone is 18 feet. Building height is proposed at 22 feet. While the proposed building height exceeds the zone requirements, it is consistent with the Specific Plan, which has approved building heights of up to 24 feet. The required front setback in an R-1-13 zone for the main residence and garage is 25 feet, with detached garages only permitted in R-1-A and R-1-AH Zones. The front and side front setbacks for the residences and detached garages will be 10 feet and 20 feet, respectively. The remainder of the proposal conforms with R-1-13 property development standards. d. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. Bogert Trail will be improved to collector street standards and will be consistent with existing improvements. The street section is appropriate for the scale of the proposed subdivision and potential net units for the surrounding properties. e. That the conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and may include minor modifications of the zone's property development standards. All proposed conditions of approval are necessary to ensure public health and safety including, but not limited to, the application of the Uniform Building Code Seismic Safety Standards, Palm Springs Municipal Code, and the City of Palm Springs Fugitive Dust Control Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council orders filing of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves Tentative Tract Map 30046 and Case No. 50881 - PD-269 subject to those conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which are to be satisfied prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless otherwise specified. ADOPTED this day of , 2003. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA City Clerk City Manager Reviewed and Approved as to Form: fin 407C EXHIBIT A TTM 30046 and Case No. 5.0881 - PD-269 North of Bogert Trail, east of Goldenrod Lane, west of Palm Canyon Wash July 30, 2003 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,the Director of Planning, the Chief of Police,the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition. Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 2. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Specific Plan Amendments, TTM 30046 Case No. 5.0881 - PD-269. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not,thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify,or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgement or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 3. That the property owner(s) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation sidewalks, bikeways, parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, signs, walls, and fences between the curb and property line, including sidewalk or bikeway easement areas that extend onto private property, in a first class condition, free from waste and debris, and in accordance with all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner's sole expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the property if required by the City. 67CCS 4. The developer shall be responsible for compliance with the State Endangered Species Act and Federal Endangered Act prior to the issuance of grading permits, if deemed necessary by the applicable resource agencies. 5. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures of the environmental assessment as follows: a. Design and construction of a 30-inch storm drainage system meeting City and RCFCWCD approval to direct stormwater runoff within TTM 30046 to the Palm Canyon Wash. b. Design and construction of a flood wall (levee) protection system meeting City and RCFCWCD approval and consistent with the Settlement Agreement with the Sierra Club necessary to protect proposed residential development from Palm Canyon Wash 100-year water surface elevations. C. Design and construction of on-site rough grading plans for future residential development meeting City approval providing future pad elevations in excess of 2 feet above highest adjacent existing grade and/or in excess of 1.5 feet above the adjacent base flood elevation of the Palm Canyon Wash. d. Application to FEMA for processing of LOMR's required to amend to associated FIRM for TTM 30046 and to redesignate all proposed residential development from Zone AO and A 123 to Zone 8 or C. e. Final grading plans, hydrology analysis and construction plans shall be approved by the Public Works Director and RCFCWCD, as appropriate, prior to issuance of grading permit. f. Required LOMR's shall be submitted and approved by FEMA prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy with TTM 30046. g. A fair-share contribution toward the construction of the South Palm Canyon Drive bridge over the Arenas South drainage channel or other funding mechanism shall be determined in a method meeting City approval and submitted to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. h. Prior to issuance of grading permits the applicant shall obtain a 404 Permit and a 1603 Agreement (if required by law) and shall implement all mitigation measures called for in the 404 Permit and 1603 Agreement at the appropriate time to mitigate the project's impacts on Waters of the United States. i. Compliance with Chapter 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan, shall be required prior to the issuance of grading permits. j. Submit a Fugitive Dust Program to South Coast Air Quality Maintenance District (AQMD) for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. Such plan shall be consistent with EPA and AQMD rules in effect at the time of issuance of grading permits. k. All mitigation measures outlined in the SP-1 Mitigation Monitoring Program shall apply except where superseded. I. Prepare and submit a focused traffic study to update the analysis prepared for the amendment to the Specific Plan#1 Environmental Assessment. (This condition no longer applies due to traffic study completed for EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103). M. Determine any revisions or modifications to Table 7 "Circulation Mitigation Measures"of the Amendment to Specific Plan#1 Environmental Assessment. (This condition no longer applies due to traffic study completed for EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103). 7CW9 n. A fair-share contribution toward the off-site roadway improvements and traffic signals outlined in Table 7, "Circulation Mitigation Measures", of the Amendment to Specific Plan#1 Environmental Assessment, as modified by a focused traffic study, shall be determined in a method meeting City approval and submitted to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. (This condition has been superseded by traffic mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103). o. Payment of TUMF shall be made prior to issuance of building permits. Please refer to Engineering Condition #54 for details. p. Regarding Casey's June Beetle, an in-lieu fee of $600 per acre for impacts to to 41.3 acres of creosote bush scrub and desert wash scrub ($24,780) shall be paid to the City or Habitat Conservation entity as designated by The City of Palm Springs prior to issuance of grading permits. (This condition has been included as part of a private agreement between Palm Canyon, LLC and the Sierra Club. Please refer to Condition #15.m. for any additional requirements). q. Regarding the desert tortoise,a"clearance survey"shall be initiated prior to grading permits. If the results of that survey are positive, coordination with USFWS and CDFG and permitting subject to Section 10(a)of the Federal Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act will be required. If the results are negative, then no further permitting will be necessary. (This condition has been superseded by biological resources mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103. Please refer to Condition #15.b. for details). r. Prior to grading, permits will be acquired from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board and CDFG.These agencies will establish any appropriate mitigation strategies through the permitting process. S. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be required in all homes outside of the 5 minute response time until a new fire station is constructed for the Specific Plan 1A area. t. Developer shall contribute on a fair-share basis to the cost of developing a new fire station based on a formula adopted by the City. U. During rough grading of the site, archaeological monitoring shall be provided. (This condition has been superseded by cultural resources mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103. Refer to Conditions#9 and#10 for details). V. Grading or any other construction activity shall halt in the area where artifacts are uncovered and the City shall be notified if potentially significant remains or artifacts are found. (This condition has been superseded by cultural resources mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum prepared for the Canyon South Specific Plan amendments, approved 7116103. Refer to Conditions#9 and#10 for details). 6a. The final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. Final development plans shall include site plans, building elevations, floor plans, roof plans, grading plans, landscape plans, irrigation plans, exterior lighting plans, sign program, mitigation monitoring program, site cross sections, property development standards and other such documents as required by the Planning Commission. Final development plans shall be submitted within two (2) years of the City Council approval of the preliminary planned development district. 6b. The property development standards forthis project shall be Section 92.01.00, R-1-B Zone, except for the modifications to minimum lot size, building height, front and side front 07C/O setbacks, and detached garages. Front setbacks for the residences and attached or detached garages will be considered at 10 to 15 feet. Side front setbacks for the residences and attached or detached garages will be considered at 20 to 25 feet, pending submittal of final development plans. 7a. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning and Zoning prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. Final landscape plans shall include the entire street right-of-way landscaped areas. The project shall be responsible for installation and maintenance of all landscaped areas within the right-of-way and easement area. 7b. The developer shall retain a biologist/ecologist to develop and oversee the installation of a revegetation program for the Palm Canyon Wash. All areas disturbed, on and off-site, during grading and construction shall be restored. 8. The project is located in an area defined as having an impact on fish and wildlife as defined in Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code. Therefore, a fee of $1,314.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00 shall be submitted by the applicant in the form of a money order or a cashier's check payable to the Riverside County Clerk prior to Council action on the project. This fee shall be submitted by the City to the County Clerk with the Notice of Determination. Action on this application shall not be final until such fee is paid. 9. A native American Monitor shall be present during all ground disturbing activities within the Plan boundary. Should any buried deposits encountered, the Monitor shall have the authority to halt destructive construction and notify a qualified archaeologist to investigate, an if necessary prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Coordinator for approval. 10. Should cultural resources be encountered during site construction in any portion of the site, work shall immediately cease and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the materials. Any significant findings shall be documented and presented to the State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO), BIA,the Tribe and the City,and resolved to their satisfaction. 11. The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit a draft declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning and Zoning for approval in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to the certificate of occupancy for the first home in the subdivision. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the City, shall not be amended without. City approval, shall require maintenance of all property and landscaping within right-of-way in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of$2000, for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney. A$250 filing fee shall also be paid to the City Planning Department for administrative review purposes. 12. Final development plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Canyon Redevelopment Plan and the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan EIR, as amended in 2003 (now known as Canyon South Specific Plan). Prior to 7 6 /1 approval of the Final PD and Final Tract Map, a comprehensive mitigation monitoring report consistent with the Monitoring Program shall be prepared and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning. The City shall be reimbursed for the cost of preparation and/or review of said report. Refer to City Council Resolution No. 17598 certifying the Final EIR for the Canyon Redevelopment Plan and Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan, City Council Resolution No. 18273 certifying the negative declaration for the General Plan Amendment and amendment to the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan#1, and City Council Resolution No. 20673 recertifying the Final EIR for the Canyon South Specific Plan for specific details. All mitigation measures, where applicable, shall be adopted as conditions of approval. The following measures are hi-lighted for convenience: a. Prior to final project acceptance including approval of the final map or planned development district, the City shall establish a formula for the applicant's payment of their "fair share" of the costs of the matters listed below, and applicant shall pay fees pursuant to the formula or post such security as the City Attorney shall determine is appropriate. The fair share formulas shall be based on data developed by City or its consultants to determine the applicant's proportionate responsibility for providing the specified public improvements, and for producing affordable housing, based upon the benefits received by the project and/or impacts caused by the project. The costs shall include not only construction costs, but also design, engineering and other similar costs, as well as City administrative costs including the costs of developing the fair-share formula. Fair-share formulas shall be developed for the following matters: i) Funding of site acquisition and construction of a fire station providing adequate fire protection services to the project site and vicinity. ii) Funding of site acquisition and construction of affordable housing meeting the goals of the City's Housing Element. See Section 5-10 (5-184) Jobs and Housing for specific mitigation measures. iii) Funding of construction of off-site roadway improvements and signals as shown in Table 5.14 of the Canyon Redevelopment Plan and the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. b. Appropriate removal and recompaction of surface soils in areas to support structures will mitigate potential settlements. Building sites planned within the alluvial areas shall be evaluated bythe soil engineer for settlement potential during detailed geotechnical studies for design of structures, with respect to the specifics of proposed structure locations, soil conditions, foundation loads, etc. A final soils report shall be submitted with the detailed development plans (grading and structural)for the project. c. All outdoor lighting constructed on the project site shall be directed at the ground to prevent unnatural lighting from interfering with the activity of nocturnal animals that live in the surrounding natural areas. Exceptions to this condition shall be limited to accent landscape and architectural lighting. All lighting which directly illuminates hillsides and wash areas shall be prohibited. This condition shall be included in the CC&R's. d. Prior to Final PD or Tentative Map approval, the applicant for a Final PD or Tentative Map proposed within the Specific Plan area shall prepare a detailed drainage plan which protects all proposed habitable structures from the 100-year storm and which is consistent -7G 1a- with the Conceptual Drainage Plan described in Specific Plan #1A, as amended July 16, 2003. On-site surface drainage shall be designed to manage 10-year to 100-year storm runoff according to Riverside County Flood Control District and City Standards. Drainage facilities shall include: natural appearing structure&armoring; replacement of jurisdictional waters disturbed; revegetation and renaturalization to blend with the surroundings. Proposed drainage improvements shall be renaturalized using local rock materials and desert landscaping using as much of the on-site cactus and other desert plants as possible. e. The natural vegetation of the site shall be preserved in open space areas. Necessary grading or other disturbance in naturally vegetated areas shall be revegetated with drought tolerant non-invasive species. The applicant shall submit landscape plans to the Department of Planning and Zoning for review and approval. 13. Pursuant to the Sierra Club Judgement filed with the Riverside County Clerk on August 18, 1993: a. The Palm Canyon Wash flood control facilities shall be constructed for 100 year storm protection and shall include the criteria as specified in the judgement. b. Flood control construction work for Palm Canyon Wash shall be limited to the period from May 1 to November 1 of any calendar year. C. As a means of providing temporary equestrian access, the applicant shall refrain from using Palm Canyon Wash as a haul route. d. In accordance with Portion #4 of Exhibit D, a 30 foot wide hiking and equestrian path shall be provided in the Palm Canyon Wash bottom. 14. Final design of the Palm Canyon Wash flood control facilities is subject to City and RCFCWCD approval. In the event a concrete lined channel is required, Planning staff recommends that rock lining be added to soften the visual impact. 15. All mitigation measures and associated mitigation monitoring program in the Addendum to Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan EIR apply and are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval. The following are mitigation measures specific to the Monte Soreno project that have been highlighted for convenience: a. There shall be an emphasis on plant species native to the immediate region in the sensitive 100 yard wide area adjacent to natural hillsides. On a limited basis within residential yards, non-desert, non-invasive exotic plants may be utilized as ornamental landscaping. Two invasive species, tamarisk and fountain grass, shall be prohibited in the Specific Plan area. The proposed plan and landscaping palette for this area shall be subject to the review of the Director of the Department of Planning and Zoning or the Planning Commission and a qualified biologist who is acceptable to the City. b. Pre-construction tortoise surveys shall be required for any project north of Bogert Trail and west of Goldenrod Lane. The surveys shall occur no more than 36 hours prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity in the area. Should desert tortoise be identified,the project proponent shall secure permits from the California w/3 Department of Fish and Game and/or the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as required. C. The project proponent(s)for any project requiring alteration of a stream or water of the United States shall secure 404 and 1603 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game, respectively, and 401 water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, if required by law. d. Project proponents within the Specific Plan boundary shall be required to construct a fence in the future, if it can be demonstrated to the City Council that direct impacts to bighorn sheep are caused by any component of the projects proposed within the Specific Plan boundary. Ten verified sheep sightings in a given 12 month period will cause the initiation of a site specific utilization study. The fence design, if required, shall be submitted to the City and any other responsible agency for review and approval prior to construction. The fence will be constructed within 12 months of notification by the City. e. All construction activity will be confined to the project site with the exception of the temporary and permanent disturbance along the western side of the wash (see Exhibit 2 of"Biological Constraints Letter Report forthe Monte Soreno Development Project", by Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D., Michael Brandman Associates, December 2002). f. The limits of the temporary disturbance zone will be cordoned off to preclude vehicular access easterly into the remaining wash area. g. Construction activity shall stop before dusk each day to avoid attracting dispersing Casey's June Beetle males during the flight season (April 1 through May 31). h. Access to the construction site will come from Bogert Trail and will remain outside the wash. i. Controlling dust by spraying water will be permissible outside the flight season and only within the designated construction zone. j. The project proponent shall secure 2.46 acres of comparable desert wash habitat off-site as mitigation for permanent impacts. The 1.6 acres to be temporarily impacted shall be re-naturalized. k. A six foot wall or fence, meeting City standards, shall be constructed along the eastern property line of the project site. 1. The payment of a $600 per acre fee to the City, for the purchase of open space/conservation lands, as previously included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. M. Palm Canyon shall pay $85,000, to be used for the acquisition of habitat for the Casey's June beetle, in addition to the $600 per acre required by condition 15.1. (hereafter"habitat acquisition funds"). The habitat acquisition funds shall be paid into an escrow for the City's benefit to be used for the acquisition of habitat for the Casey's June beetle in accordance with the terms of this Condition 15(m). Should the City,for any reason,decide not to accept the habitat acquisition funds,the funds shall be deposited into a separate escrow account for the benefit of an entity, public or private, to be designated by the Sierra Club, subject to the approval of Palm Canyon,which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The habitat acquisition funds shall still be used for acquisition of Casey's June beetle habitat. The money shall be deposited into an escrow account for the City or into a separate escrow account within 21 days of City Council approval of the Monte Sereno project application. For the purposes of this condition, date of approval shall be the date on which the last signature is placed on any resolution or ordinance required for the ?GI V approval of the Monte Sereno project application. Palm Canyon shall provide written notice to the Sierra Club that the habitat acquisition funds have been deposited within 48 hours of their deposit. For the purposes of this condition, the acquisition of habitat for the Casey's June beetle shall mean the purchase or permanent preservation by way of conservation easements and/or deed restrictions habitat identified in an approved habitat conservation plan or habitat approved by the Sierra Club. The City or the entity designated in place of the City by the Sierra Club shall provide the Sierra Club written notice of an intended use of the habitat acquisition funds at least forty-five (45) days before such expenditure takes place and that failure to object in writing within thirty(30)of notice being mailed shall be deemed automatic approval by the Sierra Club. If, for any reason, Palm Canyon requests the return of the $85,000, the money, togetherwith accrued interest,shall be returned to Palm Canyon,this condition shall be deleted and the City shall prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to address the impact of the Monte Sereno project on the Casey's June beetle. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. 2. Manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior lighting (landscaping, and entry area) shall be submitted for approval prior to final map approval. 3. The design, height, texture and color of fences and walls shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Texture, materials, and colors to be used on the proposed fences and walls shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 5. This project shall be subject to Chapters 2.24 and 3.37 of the Municipal Code regarding public art. The project shall either provide public art or payment of an in lieu fee. In the case of the in-lieu fee, the fee shall be based upon the total building permit valuation as calculated pursuant to the valuation table in the Uniform Building Code, the feeing being 1/2% for commercial projects or 1/4% for residential projects with first $100,000 of total building permit valuation for individual single-family units exempt. Should the public art be located on the project site, said location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning and the Public Arts Commission, and the property owner shall enter into a recorded agreement to maintain the art work and protect the public rights of access and viewing. 6. Separate architectural approval and permits shall be required for all signs. A detailed sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 7. The grading plan shall show the disposition of all cut and fill materials. Limits of site disturbance shall be shown and all disturbed areas shall be fully restored or landscaped. ?c / r 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Building Official. Refer to Chapter 8.50 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 9. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Engineering specifications. 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, locations of all telephone and electrical boxes must be indicated on the building plans and must be completely screened and located in the interior of the building. Electrical transformers must be located toward the interior of the project maintaining a sufficient distance from the frontage(s) of the project. Said transformer(s) must be adequately and decoratively screened. 11. Trash cans shall be screened from view and kept within fifty (50)feet of the street. 12. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from all possible vantage points both existing and future per Section 93.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. The screening shall be considered as an element of the overall design and must blend with the architectural design of the building(s). The exterior elevations and roof plans of the buildings shall indicate any fixtures or equipment to be located on the roof of the building, the equipment heights, and type of screening. Parapets shall be at least 6" above the equipment for the purpose of screening. POLICE DEPARTMENT: 1. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: 1. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured. FIRE: 1. Fire Department Access: Fire Department Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 901 and 902 CFC. (902.1 CFC) 2. Minimum Access Road Dimensions: Provide a minimum 20 feet unobstructed width. If parking on one side of the access road is desired, provide an additional 8 foot wide parking lane with opposing curb marked red with appropriate signage for a total 28 foot width. If parking on both sides of the access road is desired, provide an 8 foot wide parking lane on each side of the access road for a total 36 foot width. (902.2.2.1 CFC) 3. Turn-Around Requirements: Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The City of Palm Springs approved turn around provision is a cul-de-sac with an outside turning radius of 43 feet from centerline. (902.2.2.4 CFC) ? c !P 4. Mandatory Fire Sprinklers: Project is beyond a 5-minute response time from closest fire station and therefore requires an automatic fire sprinkler system. Only a C-16 licensed fire sprinkler contractor shall perform system design and installation. System to be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA standard 13D, 1996 edition, as modified by local ordinance. The contractor should submit fire sprinkler plans when the building plans are submitted. This allows concurrent review of the fire sprinkler and building plans. 5. Water Systems and Hydrants: Underground water mains and fire hydrants shall be installed, completed, tested and in service prior to the time when combustible materials are delivered to the construction site. (903 CFC). Prior to final approval of the installation, contractor shall submit a completed Contractor's Material and Test Certificate to the fire department. (9-2.1 NFPA 24) 6. Residential fire hydrants: Residential fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with DWA specifications and standards. No landscape planting,walls, or fencing are permitted within 3 feet of fire hydrants, except groundcover plantings. 7. Site Plan: Provide the fire department with two copies of an approved site plan. Approved locations for fire hydrants will be marked on this site plan, with one copy being returned to the applicant. The second copy will be retained by the fire department. 8. Access During Construction: Access for fire fighting equipment shall be provided to the immediate job site at the start of construction and maintained until all construction is complete. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13'6". Fire department access roads shall have an all weather driving surface and support a minimum weight of 73,000 lbs. (Sec. 902 CFC) ENGINEERING: Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. STREETS 1. Any improvements within the street right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. Work shall be allowed according to Resolution 17950- Restricting Street Work on Major and Secondary Thoroughfares. 2. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the Engineering Department. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Minimum submittal shall include the following, IF applicable: A. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department. B. All agreements and improvement plans approved by City Engineer, IF applicable. -7C '7 C. Proof of processing dedications of right-of-way, easements, encroachment agreements/licenses, covenants, reimbursement agreements, etc. required by these conditions. BOGERT TRAIL 3. The Main Entry shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 205 and have a minimum width of 85 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. 4. Construct a minimum 5 foot wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. 5. Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, 20 feet north of centerline along the entire frontage per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206. 6. Construct a Type C curb ramp meeting current California State Accessibility standards along both sides of the MAIN ENTRY per City of Palm Springs Sid. Dwg. Nos. 214 and 212A. 7. Remove and replace existing pavement with a minimum pavement section of 3 inch asphalt concrete pavement over 6 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal, from edge of proposed gutter to clean sawcut edge of existing pavement along the entire Bogert Trail frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110 and 315. The pavement section shall be designed, using "R" values, by a licensed Soils Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. AVENIDA MARBELLA 8. The existing 50 foot wide easement for road purposes for Avenida Marbella (not constructed)may be abandoned; however, access to the Palm Canyon Wash by Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFC) equipment and personnel shall be maintained or provided in an alternate location.The developer shall coordinate relocation of Palm Canyon Wash access with RCFC and provide the City Engineer with documentation from RCFC supporting abandonment of the existing road easement, prior to approval of the final map. PRIVATE STREETS 9. The following traffic calming devices, OR equal, (the final configuration to be approved by the City Engineer) shall be incorporated into the on-site streets: Narrowed pavement `chokers' shall be provided at one location on Street "B" between Streets "A" and "E", one location on Street "D" between Streets "B" and "E", and one location on Street "F" between Streets "B" and "D", as approved by the City Engineer. Chokers shall be designed with a transition using 25 foot reverse curves and a 40 to 80 foot long, 20 foot wide (10 feet each side of centerline) narrowed travel way. The narrowed travel way shall be constructed with a colored or decorative Portland cement concrete section 6 inches thick as approved by the City Engineer. ?C'8 10, The minimum pavement section for all on-site streets shall be 2-1/2 inch asphalt concrete pavement over 4-inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal. The pavement section shall be designed, using "R"values, determined by a licensed Soils Engineer and submitted with the Fine Grading Plan to the City Engineer for approval. 11. Construct a wedge curb,with the back of the wedge curb located 18.5 feet from both sides of centerline along all private street frontages, with 25 foot radius curb returns and spandrels as required at interior street intersections, per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206. 12. Construct 6 foot wide cross gutters as required at interior street intersections in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206. 13. Street intersection design for interior "L" street intersections shall be designed in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 104, or as approved by the City Engineer. 14. Off-set cul-de-sacs of interior streets shall be designed in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. 15. All centerline radii shall be a minimum of 130 feet. The proposed intersection of Street "B" and Street "F shall be revised. The intersection shall be redesigned in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer, using a standard knuckle, or the centerline radius shall be increased to a minimum of 130 feet. 16. Construct minimum 10 wide driveway approaches for all lots in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201. 17. The following requirements for a gated entry shall be met to provide adequate setbacks and turning movements for vehicles entering the primary parking facilities of this project: A. Provide a minimum 50 foot setback to the access gate control mechanism B. Provide a turnaround after the mechanism for vehicles unable to enter the project C. Security gates shall provide a minimum of 20 feet clear width in one direction. D. Provide a separate lane of ingress for residents. SANITARY SEWER 18. All on-site sewer systems shall be privately maintained by a Home Owners Association (HOA). Provisions for maintenance of the on-site sewer system, acceptable to the City Engineer, shall be included in the Codes, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs) required for this project. 19. Connect all sanitary facilities to the City sewer system. Lateral shall not be connected at manhole. Co 20. Developer shall construct an 8 inch sewer main across all PRIVATE STREET frontages, or as required to provide sewer service to each lot. 21. Submit sewer improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the Engineering Department. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Minimum submittal shall include the following: A. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department. B. Proof of processing dedications of right-of-way, easements, encroachment agreements/licenses, covenants, reimbursement agreements, etc. required by these conditions. 22. The existing 8 inch and 12 inch public sewer mains extending through the project and proposed for relocation shall be relocated in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer.The developer shall dedicate an easement for sewer purposes to the City of Palm Springs over the width of private streets for the relocated alignment of the public sewer system within the project.The relocated public sewer mains shall be separated from the private sewer system to be constructed to provide sewer service to lots within the project. GRADING 23. The proposed pad elevations shown on the tentative map are inconsistent with the City of Palm Springs Flood Hazard Ordinance. Approved pad elevations shall be established as required to demonstrate compliance with the Flood Hazard Ordinance including: design of on-site rough grading plans for future- residential development meeting City approval providing future pad elevations in excess of 2 feet above each lot's highest adjacent existing grade in the AO Zone, and/or 1.5 feet above the base flood elevation in the A7 and Al Zones. 24. A copy of a Title Report prepared/updated within the past 3 months and copies of record documents shall be submitted to the City Engineer with the first submittal of the Grading Plan. 25, Submit a Grading Plan prepared by a Registered Professional to the Engineering Department for plan check. Grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval to submit for plan check prior to submittal to the Engineering Department. A PM 10 (dust control) Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Division prior to approval of the grading plan. The Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Minimum submittal includes the following: A. Planning Department approval to submit for plan check. B. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department. 47 c;0 C. Copy of Site Plan stamped approved and signed by the Planning Department. D. Copy of Title Report prepared/updated within past 3 months. E. Copy of Soils Report, IF required by these conditions. F. Copy of Hydrology Study/Report, IF required by these conditions. G. Copy of the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. 916 657-0687) to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 26. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks-3'wide and 6"deep - to keep nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways, or gutters. 27, Developer shall obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. (916)-657-0687)and provide a copy of same, when executed, to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 28. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.00, the developer shall post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per acre for mitigation measures of erosion/blowsand relating to his property and development. 29. A soils report prepared by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer shall be required for and incorporated as an integral part of the grading plan for the proposed site.A copy of the soils report shall be submitted to the Building Department and to the Engineering Department along with plans,calculations and other information subjectto approval bythe City Engineer prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 30. Contact the Building Department to get information regarding the preparation of the PM10 (dust control) Plan requirements. 31. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project, applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the export of soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved"Notification of Intent To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties" (RIFA Form CA-1) or a verbal release from that office prior to the issuance of the City grading permit. The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert. (Phone: 760-776-8208) DRAINAGE 32. The developer shall accept all stormwater runoff passing through and falling onto the site and conduct this runoff to an approved drainage structure as required by the hydrology study prepared by Tettemer and Associates, Dated April 2001. 33. The eastern slope of the Palm Canyon Wash shall not be disturbed. 47 0al 34. Developer shall pay a fair share contribution as approved by the City Engineer toward the construction of a bridge structure at the South Palm Canyon Drive crossing of the Arenas South drainage channel. 35. A portion of this property is in Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Zone A7 (Lots 25 through 29), Zone A13 (Lots 3 through 13) and the remainder is in Zone AO (Depth 1). Development of this project shall conform to all FEMA and City of Palm Springs Flood Hazard Ordinance requirements for these zones. 36. The developer shall design and construct a storm drain system outletting into the Palm Canyon Wash, as approved by RCFC and the City Engineer consistent with the proposed system included in the hydrology study prepared by Tettemer and Associates, dated April 2001. 37. The developer shall design and construct a hard lined levee flood wall system adjacent to the Palm Canyon Wash from the end of the existing levee north of the Bogert Trail Bridge to the north property line of the tract OR transition to the existing channel, and shall coordinate further drainage improvements within the Canyon Golf Course area as required by and approved by RCFC and the City Engineer, consistent with the proposed improvements included in the hydrology study prepared by Tettemer and Associates, dated April 2001. 38. The developer shall submit an application and all required information to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to issuance of building permits. 39. Final grading plans,hydrology analysis and construction plans shall be approved bythe City Engineer and RCFC, as appropriate, prior to issuance of a grading permit. ON-SITE 40. Any utility cuts in the existing off-site pavement made by this development shall receive trench replacement pavement to match existing pavement plus one additional inch. See City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. Pavement shall be restored to a smooth rideable surface. 41. All proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utilities shall be shown on the grading/street plans. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line.The approved original grading/street plans shall be as-built and returned to the City of Palm Springs Engineering Department prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 42. The developer is advised to contact all utility purveyors for detailed requirements for this project at the earliest possible date. 43. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any driveway which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code 93.02.00, D. 7c*)aX- 44. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Engineering specifications. MAP 45, The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property, the traverse closures for the existing parcel and all lots created therefrom, and copies of record documents shall be submitted with the Final Map to the Engineering Department. 46. The Final Map shall be prepared by a licensed Land Surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Department for review. Submittal shall be made prior to issuance of grading or building permits. TRAFFIC 47. The developer shall provide a minimum of 48 inches of sidewalk clearance around all street furniture, fire hydrants and other above-ground facilities for handicap accessibility. The developer shall provide same through dedication of additional right-of-way and widening of the sidewalk or shall be responsible for the relocation of all existing traffic signal/safety light poles, conduit, pull boxes and all appurtenances located on the BOGERT TRAIL frontage of the subject property. 48. Install a stop sign at the following interior street intersections as required by the City Engineer: Install a stop sign for vehicles egressing at the Main Entry. Install a three-way stop sign at Street "A" and Street "B". Install a stop sign on Street "C" at Street "E". Install a stop sign on Street "E" at Street "D". Install a stop sign on Street"E" at Street "B". Install a stop sign on Street"Y at Street "F. Install a stop sign on Street "H" at Street "F. 49. The developer shall replace all damaged, destroyed, or modified pavement legends and striping that is required by the City Engineer on the BOGERT TRAIL frontage prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 50. The developer shall pay a fair share contribution toward the off-site roadway improvements and traffic signals outlined in the Specific Plan, as amended on July 16, 2003. Payment of required fair share contributions shall be made prior to approval of a final map. 51. Street name signs shall be required at each intersection in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 620 through 625. 52. Low profile and glare protected lights shall be installed on each side of the Main Entry located on Bogert Trail. 47CA3 53. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a minimum, all construction signing,lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State of California, Department of Transportation, "MANUAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES" dated 1996, or subsequent additions in force at the time of construction. 54. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee based on the RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ITE Code B land use. 7C4� 5e ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1-B, W-R-1-B, AND SP-1 TO PD-269 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF BOGERT TRAIL, EAST OF GOLDENROD LANE,AND WEST OF THE PALM CANYON WASH, ZONE R-1-B, W-R-1-B, SP-1, SECTION 35. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1.Pursuant to Section 94.07.0013-6 of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, the official zoning map of the City of Palm Springs, referred to herein, is hereby amended as follows: Change of Zone from R-1-B, W-R-1-B, and SP-1 to PD-269 The parcel of property legally shown on Exhibit A is approved fora change of zone from R-1-13, W- R-1-13, and SP-1 to PD-269, specifically on the property located north of Bogert Trail, east of Goldenrod Lane, and west of the Palm Canyon Wash, on file in the Planning and Zoning Department, Case 5.0881-PD-269 TTM 30046 SECTION 2.EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after passage. SECTION 3. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk is hereby ordered to and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance, and to cause the same or summarythereof or a display advertisement, duly prepared according to law, to be published in accordance with law. ADOPTED THIS day of 2003. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA By: City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED &APPROVED: Xf-I *7 0 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED CHANGE OF ZONE: R-1-B and W-R-1-13 to PD-269 APN #s 512-190-001 512 190-002 512-190-007 512-190-008 512-190-009 512-190-026 512-190-032 512-190-036 R 2 0 u.L\1 0 M R-Z N W-R-�- - -�nF u v_. �..�.... SNgPDi{AGON _ H�Gett4 r AZ Le LUi,6 DOGW4 7'� I R / F WAY "Wy "7 ��